W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2017

(unknown charset) Re: Technical question about Javascript disabled option

From: (unknown charset) Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:55:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: (unknown charset) Giacomo Petri <giacomopetri89@gmail.com>
cc: (unknown charset) w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1710052048480.6281@server2.shellworld.net>
May I ask a question?  Is it possible still to create a css, one with the 
java scripting, and one that still functions without it?
Granted if the links work from the keyboard, for example test with  the 
updated editions of Lynx that employ they command to submit a java script 
focused link  things might be okay.
I wonder if that 97% have java script enabled by choice?
My concern about encouraging  java scripting are those who do  not do it 
well.  Java script voids that go no where.  links that say button and do 
not  recognize the enter key etc.
access is not just about blindness and vision  impairment.  broaden the 
focus, at least that is my perspective.

"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his
skin or his background or his religion ... People must learn to
hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to
love... For love comes more naturally to the human heart than its
opposite." Nelson Mandela.

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Giacomo Petri wrote:

> Dear WAI IG,
> My question concerns the accessibility of a page with javascript disabled
> option.
> Consider the following scenarios:
>   - javascript disabled -> blank page;
>   - javascript disabled -> global elements (for example header and footer)
>   and blank page content;
>   - javascript disabled -> “Enable javascript to navigate this site” text;
> Which of them are accessible?
> I listed my considerations dividing them between PROS and CONS:
> *PROS (page is accessible)*:
>   - in WCAG 2.0 there are sufficient techniques that require Javascript;
>   if user disable Javascript these sufficient techniques aren’t available and
>   the content of the page won’t be accessible;
>   - a WebAIM survey in 2014 reported that 97.6% of respondents had
>   Javascript enabled (I think we should consider accessibility linked to the
>   technology progress and Javascript is part of this);
>   - with the warning “Enable javascript to navigate this site” the
>   developer took care to alert the user that informations are available
>   activating Javascript.
> *CONS (page is not accessible)*:
>   - from the WCAG “omissis … Following these guidelines will make content
>   accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including
>   blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities,
>   cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities,
>   photosensitivity and combinations of these. Following these guidelines will
>   also often make your Web content more usable to users in general.”;
>   considering people that navigate with Javascript disabled option or with
>   other browsers like LYNX, in the scenario highlighted the content of the
>   page won’t be available at all.
>   - from the WCAG “omissis… If technologies are used in a way that is not
>   accessibility supported, or if they are used in a non-conforming way, then
>   they do not block the ability of users to access the rest of the page.”
>   (reading the Understanding Conformance Requirements this block was
>   described to avoid interferences between technologies but may be useful for
>   my question) may we consider “disabled javascript” a technology used in a
>   non-conforming way? If that’s true, the user is not able to navigate and
>   understand the content of the page because the content is missing.
>   - comparing two WebAIM surveys in 2012 and 2014 we can see that the
>   number of users with Javascript disabled is slightly increased.
>> From my personal considerations, at least a warning message should be
> implemented to alert the user the page is not working without Javascript,
> so the first and the second options are not accessible, the third is
> “enough” accessible.
> Returning to my question: in general is obviously a good practice make
> content available without Javascript and provide “necessary” functionality
> also without Javascript, but, in an already existing site where the effort
> to support it without Javascript is unmanageable, may the “Enable
> Javascript to navigate the site” text solution considered a sufficient
> technique or not? Display a blank page without any error message is
> considered a WCAG failure?
> I thank you in advance for answering these questions.
> Best,
> Giacomo Petri
Received on Friday, 6 October 2017 00:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:37:11 UTC