Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

actually, not exactly.
I can use links and e-links which are java script friendly browsers, I 
would not consider this as backward technology for that reason.  Also, the 
scripting functions of many sites that insure their use of Java scripting 
can be accessible may work even with currently updated editions of lynx 
the cat, which should qualify this as a ahem modern browser too.
I think my preference would echo that of other people here...do both.
Make your site work  well with for those who may want it, and without for 
those who may want it.  certainly though claiming that a currently
  updated browser is not
  modern if it can actually work with a Java script site and keep a text 
focus serves no one.
Karen

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> On 14/12/2012 21:33, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>>  How can you, not living my experience, decide my technology is backward?
>>  smiles.
>>  Or how can you decide anyone is using something backward if it works for
>>  them?
>
> But it clearly doesn't work for you, if JavaScript enabled sites that work 
> just fine for a large portion of disabled users who use more recent tools 
> don't work well in your tools...no?
>
> Anyway, again: WCAG 2.0 allows accessibly-authored JavaScript. If the issue 
> you're having is that you think this shouldn't be the case, then it's worth 
> taking it up with the authors of WCAG 2.0 and see if this should get changed 
> for WCAG 2.1 or whatever comes next.
>
> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
>
>
>