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

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:13:13 -0800
To: <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: "'Karen Lewellen'" <klewellen@shellworld.net>, "'David Hilbert Poehlman'" <poehlman1@comcast.net>, "'W3C WAI ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01fc01cddca3$b6e71570$24b54050$@ca>
accessys@smart.net wrote:
> Lynx and it's variants are not obsolete or out of step 

Once again Bob, you are entitled to your opinion. 

In 2012, most people will accept the assertion that a web browser that does
not support client side scripting is out of step with the current
technology. That is neither a good thing nor a band thing, but it is true
none-the-less. If all but one house is Red, then the Blue house is out of
step with the other houses - point of fact, with zero judgment behind that

A text-based browser such as Lynx has its strengths and weaknesses, and
failing to admit that fact is where this whole debated dissolves into
religion - your god is better than my god. I reject that, and so do most
others. You can continue to beat your particular drum all you want, but you
will not change facts on the ground one iota.

> they are a way
> the most recent release of lynx 2.8.7 rel 2 is still current and
> supported
> so what is the problem with supporting and allowing others to access
> and
> USE the web via a basic system rather than glitzed up. 

The PROBLEM is that the technology that is the web platform has advanced,
and refusing to use tools that take advantage of those advances is, while a
personal choice, *YOUR* choice. Insisting that everyone keep in lockstep
with how *you* use the web is as discriminatory to *me* as the allegations
that sites that require JavaScript are discriminatory to PWD. 

Look, the world can't have it both ways, and one thing about the web is the
egalitarian nature of how it "works" - in many ways it is a true democracy.
The majority of the users on the web agree that using a web browser that
supports scripting today is pretty much a prerequisite to interacting with
the web. Since many people have amply illustrated that using a non-JS
supporting browser has "negative" affects on *all users*, not just PWD,
stating otherwise will get you nowhere.

> I have two
> cars.
> both will operate and get me where I want to go.  one is a 35yr old VW
> still runs fine and is well maintained, the other is a fairly new
> Honda.
> both do the same job, one is just a whole lot fancier. sure the Honda
> has
> power windows, but the hand crank on the VW windows works just fine,
> and
> is less likely to break and if so easier to fix.

...Until such time as Volkswagen stops manufacturing replacement parts for
your car. At that point, threatening Pep Boys or your local garage with a
law-suit because they can't get you the required part you need for a
critical repair does nobody any good. 

You may still be able to find that part out there somewhere, but *you* will
have to work harder to find it, and you will likely pay more to get it.
Those are the consequences of driving the older car - which is and will
always remain your choice. And all of those additional burdens would belong
to anyone driving a 20 year old car - irrespective of whether they have a
disability or not.

> > Nothing in the WCAG 2 Standard, nor (as far as I know, any
> legislation,
> > Canadian or otherwise) specifically says that every software
> combination
> > MUST successfully allow you to do everything you want to be able to
> do on
> > the web, and to suggest otherwise is Pollyanna thinking.
> NO but American law says it must be FREE and USABLE by persons with
> disabilities.  yelling get with the times does not solve the problem.

Cost of Linux? Free
Cost of Orca (or other Linux base screen readers)? Free
Cost of Firefox for Linux? Free

Unless you can *specifically* show how someone using Lynx cannot also use
Firefox, then you've pretty much made your bed. WANTING to use Lynx versus
being unable to use Firefox because of how Firefox has been developed sets a
whole higher bar of evidence: show us how a Lynx user is unable to use
Firefox, or walk away from the debate. Not personal preferences, but real
inability to perform the task.

> we need to solve the problem, if one or a couple people here are
> stating
> it is a problem,

Sure there is a problem: Lynx doesn't support JavaScript, some users refuse
to use anything but Lynx, and so they claim that using JavaScript is
discriminatory to them. The problem is with Lynx, not the web.

> it is probably indicative of a much more common issue
> than "get with the times"  sometimes getting with the times is a step
> backwards for many people

...or maybe the problem really is with Lynx? Maybe that browser needs to
start supporting client side scripting like virtually every other browser
out there? Or maybe the problem is that some users refuse to accept that
their personal choices in technology are the root of their problems.

At any rate, you are, as always, entitled to your opinions. Just don't be
too surprised if the majority disagree with your opinion, and do understand
that your opinion alone does not make law, nor interpret it. I'll suggest
the same holds true for W3C Recommendations as well.

Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 22:13:50 UTC

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