WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Is noscript really needed to comply with 508>

for

From: Jared Smith
Date: Jul 22, 2011 8:12AM

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Donald Evans < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Section 508 1194.22 Para-L is usually interpreted to
> require a noscript option for each script that produces functional text.

This is not at all our interpretation
(http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist#standardl). Noscript is not
a suitable alternative to inaccessible content. Instead, it is an
alternative for when scripting is disabled. Because nearly all users,
including those with disabilities, have JavaScript enabled (see
http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript), noscript
does almost nothing for accessibility.

This guideline should be properly interpreted as "If you use
JavaScript, the JavaScript stuff must be accessible."

Additionally, unless it's been fixed recently, JAWS does not support
or read noscript content anyway, even if scripting is disabled.

Using progressive enhancement is nearly always a better approach, but
again, this has little to do with accessibility and only is applicable
with scripting is disabled.

> This will most likely require the customer to create a separate text only
> version.

Doing so would very likely be a direct violation of Section 508 (k) -
http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist#standardk Unless the
scripted content cannot be made accessible in any way (very unlikely),
a text-only version is not a suitable alternative.

> I don't believe WCAG 2 requires a noscript.

Correct. WCAG takes the same approach as Section 508 - it's OK to use
and even require scripting, but the scripted content must be
accessible.

Jared