RE: Reasons for not using <noscript> (was: Google Adsense ... not accessible) from Andrew Kirkpatrick on 2006-01-31 (w3c-wai-ig@w3.org from January to March 2006)

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:31:34 -0800
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <53744A0A1D995C459E975F971E17F5646077CF@namail4.corp.adobe.com>

> 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.

The client won't know, and unfortunately, neither will users of JAWS.
Window-Eyes does read noscript content, however.
AWK

Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 15:35:49 UTC