Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

Harry wrote:

> Ironically, this exactly illustrates Karen's original point. 
> _Your point_: To be able to use the highway, you need a modern car; 
> that's perfectly acceptable;
> _Karen's point_: If you do not want to make use of the highway you use a 
> bicycle. On an *alternative* route. 
> 
> Karen is not complaining because the route requires a modern car; she is 
> merely asking that she too be allowed to get to the end-point. 

Karen is not accepting any "alternative route" different from the Web. 
She is voluntarily choosing a tool that she knows is not compatible with 
JavaScript but she is not accepting the consequences of that decision. 
She is complaining because she cannot ride her bike on modern highways. 
Moreover, there are free adapted cars available, but she doesn't want to 
drive a car. She likes her bike.

Alternative routes can be completely different such as a phone service 
or even traditional letters sent using traditional post offices. Of 
course you can use traditional mail instead of e-mail, it is your 
decision. Post offices are also "modern" since new postmen are hired 
every year.

And, one more time, everyone else that makes the same decision will have 
the same kind of problems. It is not a discrimination against people 
with disabilities, it is the direct consequence of using tools that are 
not prepared for the modern world.

Regards,
Ramón.

Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 18:48:52 UTC