Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

Karen Lewellen wrote:
.
> 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, 

For those not familiar with these programs, I would point out that they 
do not implement "javascript" in any normal sense.  What they do is 
recognize certain idioms in web sites where people have made control 
inaccessible (in the sense of unreachable) when scripting is disabled 
(e.g. the use of javascript: URLs to popup a window, where the real link 
is in the parameters of the subroutine call).

I would also note that whilst I have been increasingly forced to use 
graphical browsers, and with them, increasingly forced to keep scripting 
on, even though I am wary of the security implications, nonetheless, on 
a cleanly designed web site, text only browsers can be blindingly fast, 
and going through a series of pages, can be much faster than any Ajax 
update of a page.  At the moment, I am more and more being forced to use 
a netbook, because more and more sites are taking upwards of a minute to 
load on an older machine,with muliple warnings about possible runaway 
scripts, and some are IE only.  All this is a long way from the original 
concepts behind the web, but it comes under the broad definition of 
accessibility, not the narrow one, increasingly practied here.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Saturday, 15 December 2012 11:05:33 UTC