WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Is noscript really needed to comply with 508>

for

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Jul 22, 2011 2:54PM

Right I fully concur with Andrew and Jared. NOSCRIPT kicks in when
scripting is disabled or not supported and that hardly makes scripted
content accessible. Scripted content can be made accessible and is
supported by browsers / AT. When JS is used to convey state of menu
for instance (expanded / collapsed) that is accessible scripting.
Nothing to do with NOSCRIPT. If ARIA states are toggled by JS to
reflect the state that too is accessible stuff and does not require JS
to be turned off.
Sailesh Panchang


On 7/22/11, Jared Smith < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> 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
>