WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: JavaScript always On?

for

From: Greg Gamble
Date: Jul 11, 2013 11:41AM

Well, if they removed images it might not be worth using now would it? And to be honest, I don't waste a lot of time testing with JavaScript (JS) off since I have the ability to fall back to the server for anything that would be done client side. Any JS that does fail from lack of support is usually eye candy anyway.

Supposedly there are about 1.5% of users with JS turned off, but how much of that is from spyders and spam bots ... half maybe? And to be honest, if you have a site that requires a lot of interaction from the users and there is a lot of data being moved around then JS is going to be required.

I understand your "Anger?" at this, and my "thinking it a good thing", but there are times when JS is required and the time required to degrade a site gracefully to work without JS is getting harder and harder to justify.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Jukka K. Korpela
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:12 AM
To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] JavaScript always On?

2013-07-11 19:23, Greg Gamble wrote:

> Since Firefox is removing the ability to disable JavaScript soon,

What?

> what does this mean to web developers who care about accessibility, like us?

If true, it would mean a little bit of more work. You would need to use
an add-on that lets you switch of all or part of JavaScript. Not very
difficult, but could be annoying to some.

> Personally, I think it's a good thing. We'll no longer need to design pages that fallback gracefully any more.

So you mean that if you cannot directly test, on one browser, how a page
behaves with scripting disabled, you don't need to do such testing at
all? Analogously, if Firefox removes the option of not loading images
automatically, will you stop worrying about alt attributes?

Yucca