W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@whatsock.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:08:34 -0800
Message-ID: <A3093EBDF251430ABE4D730AB83E0DD9@WAMPAS>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I'm not making excuses for badly programmed sites or features, if they were programmed correctly, this wouldn't be a problem.
If you read the prior threads, you will see that my comment refers to the following:
"Asking a sighted neighbour to come and install software that will enable me to access this service is demeaning to me and makes me reliant on others"

Can we please bring this conversation to a close, I don't see that there is any value in continuing it.

JavaScript is here to stay and nobody is going to stop using it. Globally recognized libraries such as jQuery are used in products all around the world, and companies aren't going to remove it. 

In the same way that HTML is made accessible using proper programming best practices, so too is JavaScript. JavaScript is not inaccessible simply because it exists and is used.

Since this was the original question, I think this is a satisfactory answer.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Harry Loots 
  To: Bryan Garaventa 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:01 AM
  Subject: Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

  On 14 December 2012 20:27, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@whatsock.com> wrote:

    In earlier threads, I've also seen that asking for help is humiliating. Granted it's annoying, but this is something I've had to do on many occasions throughout my life, and it happens to everyone, not just blind people. Pride itself is not a disabling condition, and no amount of programming will fix it.

  I was asked to evaluate a solution a few years ago (4-5 years), used by several blind, and low-vision users. It was an online salary slip. It was so badly developed that the group of blind users had to ask colleagues to read out to them what salary/deductions etc they could expect. 

  They did not want their colleagues to know how much or how little they were earning. They did not want their colleagues to know how much they were being subsidised for bus and/or other enablers to get to be able to come to work. This, in their opinion, was demeaning.

  Kind regards, Harry
Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 20:09:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:42 UTC