WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: NOSCRIPT question

for

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: May 5, 2006 6:30AM

Joe Clark wrote:
>> From: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>>
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>> I'll make it easy. Don't use noscript.
>>
>> I'll make it easier and contradict Andrew. Use NOSCRIPT, in
>> accordance with the W3C's recommendation:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-scripts
>
> WCAG 1 is outdated when it comes to scripting (not to mention
> self-contradictory). It is our job as standardistas and
> accessibilitistas to know how to interpret archaic guidelines in the
> context of modern technology. Go ahead and use JavaScript correctly
> (a concept still in evolution, but many basic facts are known) and
> ignore <noscript> the way you ignore <noframes>.

Well...

Despite recent protestations on this list that using NOSCRIPT is
archaic, and should not be required anymore, a recent article by James
Edwards, (aka brothercake), lends some weight to my assertion that using
NOSCRIPT is still not only valid, but perhaps even required.

In a recent article, "AJAX and Screenreaders: When Can it Work?"
(http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ajax-screenreaders-work), James
outlines a series of tests undertaken with specific scripts and specific
AT (screen readers).

James's conclusion?
"I'm forced to conclude that, unless a way can be found to
notify screen readers of updated content, AJAX techniques cannot be
considered accessible, and should not be used on a production site
without a truly equivalent non-script alternative being offered to users
up-front." (NOTE, James says non-script, and not NOSCRIPT, but using
<NOSCRIPT> is certainly a predictable and stable way of providing the
equivalent alternative...)

I think what is most important here is that James's statement is based
upon real testing (with published results) and not based on "opinion"
per-se, even when those opining are generally considered to be
authorative 99 times out of 100. (And this is not a dig at Joe, Andrew
or Chris, all "accessibilitistas" who have both contributed to the
general body of knowledge we have, and who I each respect individually)


All too often we base our decisions on hearsay and our personal
perspective, rather than quantative data. Perhaps it's because that
quantative data is often hard to come by, I don't know. But I salute
brothercake (and the others that contributed to his research) for both
tackling the topic and sharing the results. We need more of this type
of research and hard data/published results.

However, the reports of the death of NOSCRIPT are perhaps premature?

JF
--
John Foliot <EMAIL REMOVED>
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053