- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:00:22 +0000 (GMT)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> step further, I have seen <noscript> advising that scripting should be > turned on or that that the user should obtain an alternative user agent > - ouch!) That's just a variation on "please upgrade" as noframes content. Fairly standard mis-design practice. (I think there is less awareness of noscript amongst people who don't care about backward compatibility than there is about noframes.) > So, to go back to Jim's point, I don't believe that poor accessibility > may be inferred by the lack of a <noscript> element in a document that > uses scripting. Jim was suggesting that <noscript> actually implies poor programming. I'd disagree, in part because it is quite likely to be be put in by an accessibility aware programmer when the client is insisting that the page should do things that rely on "Javascript" processing. This relies on the no-scripting case being a don't care condition for the client so, whilst the programmer has exceeded their brief, with possible cost implications, the client will probably never know that the fallback exists.
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 22:02:23 UTC