- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:06:43 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 14/12/2012 19:45, Karen Lewellen wrote: [...] > A woman goes into a > McDonald's like restaurant and says I want a hamburger I think the discussion has now almost reached the point of being lost in pointlessly flawed analogies... > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, David Hilbert Poehlman wrote: > If free >> means the cost of a computer ...and this is the "reductio ad absurdum" end of any web content accessibility discussion: we start to bemoan the fact that people actually need a computer to get online... The fact remains: if we're still talking about WCAG 2.0 and JavaScript, then JS *is* allowed as a technology, because it is accessibility supported: a) there are tools readily available to consume it b) there are known techniques to make its content work perfectly with those tools. If "is javascript considered good wcag 2.0 practice?" was the original question, before we got sidetracked into those analogies, then the answer is "yes" with the proviso that the JavaScript is used correctly. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke ______________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 20:07:08 UTC