WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: NOSCRIPT question

for

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: May 2, 2006 12:20PM

"If it is not possible to make the page usable without scripts, provide
a text equivalent with the NOSCRIPT element, or use a server-side script
instead of a client-side script, or provide an alternative accessible
page as per checkpoint 11.4."

Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
> This is compatible with what I said, except that I still think that
> using noscript is not worth it.

Beg your pardon Andrew, you stated:

"I'll make it easy. Don't use noscript." (full stop, no
qualifiers)

...yet the W3C says to use NOSCRIPT - this is a direct contradiction.
This is what I am commenting on.

>
> I'm not developing content _for_
> user agents, I'm developing with the abilities of user agents in
> mind.

And that may very well be. However, advising to *not* use NOSCRIPT
because JAWS does not support it is, to my mind, fundamentally wrong.
Don't use JavaScript at all then, because Lynx does not support it. If
you support the notion that the first statement is valid, then obviously
the second statement is valid too.

>
>> I'm sorry, but I must totally disagree with Andrews advice
>> here - it's wrong: if you are using a script, then *if/when*
>> required (a mission critical function) use NOSCRIPT.
>
> It's not wrong. There is a perfectly viable alternative that works
> the same for most users and better for the rest. Why would you use
> noscript given this?

Wait, in the case of the navigation bit, the solution you proposed is
the best way forward - I don't debate that and in fact stated so.
However, using/not using NOSCRIPT is not "simple" and it *is* wrong to
imply never to use NOSCRIPT, which is what your initial statement
inferred.

What I said is, in instances where the page author *MUST* use JavaScript
for a Mission Critical function, that they should provide a fallback
mechanism, and sometimes that involves NOSCRIPT: I would hate to have a
newer list member presume that using NOSCRIPT is somehow not a valid
option because JAWS does not support it - and this is the point I am
advocating. NOSCRIPT is valid HTML, is referenced in WCAG 1 as a
"recommendation", and if/when it is required (and no, off the top of my
head I cannot conjure up an example), perfectly acceptable. To state
otherwise is, IMHO, wrong.

> I fully support
> providing the content to users that have user agents that don't
> support scripting, but there is a better way than using noscript.

Defend this statement please. You know of another way other than
NOSCRIPT for situations where NOSCRIPT is required?

>
> So you do agree with me! :)
>

In this particular example, your proposed solution is the best way
forward. I take exception with the blanket, un-qualified statement of
"do not use NOSCRIPT" that you started your original response with.

>
> I didn't suggest doing something outside of the W3C's
> recommendations, I just think that one of their suggestions is not a
> good solution.

Many of the existing suggestions in WCAG 1 are either dated or not
optimal - Andrew you know as well as most how I feel about Accesskeys -
and while I put forth my objections (every chance I get <grin>), I have
never stated *not* to use them - only that *I* don't use them because
they are fraught with potential problems and to make your choices
carefully and to be fully informed. If this is what you are trying to
say, then fair enough, but that is not what you originally wrote.

JF