E-mail List Archives
Thread: Noscript
Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)
From: Steven Henderson
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 5:06AM
Subject: Noscript
No previous message | Next message →
What are people's thoughts on using the noscript tag?
After using various unobtrusive flash placement techniques, the one thing
that always annoyed me as a visual user was that for a brief moment, any
flash-alternative content in the html would always be displayed before
anything else (JavaScript or flash content). Not always a problem, but in
cases where there is significant enough content to call the viewer's
attention, I found it increasingly unacceptable. So, recently I have started
wrapping all my flash-alternative content inside noscript tags to prevent
this happening.
Anybody have any reasons why this would hinder accessibility for any users?
WAVE seems to have an issue with the tag, but is there more to be concerned
with in using the tag?
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 7:51AM
Subject: Re: Noscript
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Steven Henderson wrote:
> So, recently I have started
> wrapping all my flash-alternative content inside noscript tags to prevent
> this happening.
This content would only be available to users that do not have Flash
AND javascript. So, it's not really a flash-alternative. It's a Flash
+ javascript alternative. This could result in some users getting
nothing - the many users that have Flash disabled and javascript
enabled.
> WAVE seems to have an issue with the tag, but is there more to be concerned
> with in using the tag?
What do you mean by "issue"? WAVE alerts you to the presence of
noscript content so that you can ensure it has been implemented
correctly and contains accessible content. Is there something else
going on?
I think it's been addressed, but JAWS totally ignored noscript content
for many, many years - even if javascript was disabled. In general,
noscript has nothing to do with accessibility. It is simply for
presenting alternatives to scripted content. It is NOT, as is commonly
assumed, for alternatives to inaccessible scripted content. As our
screen reader survey shows
(http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey2/#javascript), most
screen reader users have scripting enabled and will get the scripted
content.
<noscript> has generally grown out-of-fashion. It's very purpose
promotes development in ways that are neither effective, nor that
support accessibility. Instead, a progressive enhancement approach
where accessible HTML content is presented and then scripting (or, in
your case, Flash) is used to enhanced or modify that content is a
better approach. But, it seems like the Flash replacement technique
you are using doing does this - just not very well for sighted users.
I can't really make a suitable recommendation - I'm not terribly
up-to-speed with Flash replacement techniques.
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Steven Henderson
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 8:21AM
Subject: Re: Noscript
← Previous message | No next message
Indeed Jared, I'm experiencing the problem when using Javascript to display
Flash content, particularly fullscreen Flash content which requires
javascript to properly control the browser scroll behaviour. As such, I'm
inclined to keep to my solution of using the noscript tag, but only so long
as the Flash content itself is accessible by other means.
I hadn't considered that placing non-flash content inside the noscript tag
would actually prevent javascript-disabled users from accessing it's
content, however ... so there is now the question of whether non-visual
users should be prevented from accessing the content to appease visual
users.
Hmmm, that is annoying, as the flash replacement techniques I use are
industry standard ... perhaps there is a minor server performance trick I am
missing. Anyways, I am going to take more conscious care when using the
noscript tag from here on.
Thanks Jared.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: 18 January 2010 14:51
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Noscript
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Steven Henderson wrote:
> So, recently I have started
> wrapping all my flash-alternative content inside noscript tags to prevent
> this happening.
This content would only be available to users that do not have Flash
AND javascript. So, it's not really a flash-alternative. It's a Flash
+ javascript alternative. This could result in some users getting
nothing - the many users that have Flash disabled and javascript
enabled.
> WAVE seems to have an issue with the tag, but is there more to be
concerned
> with in using the tag?
What do you mean by "issue"? WAVE alerts you to the presence of
noscript content so that you can ensure it has been implemented
correctly and contains accessible content. Is there something else
going on?
I think it's been addressed, but JAWS totally ignored noscript content
for many, many years - even if javascript was disabled. In general,
noscript has nothing to do with accessibility. It is simply for
presenting alternatives to scripted content. It is NOT, as is commonly
assumed, for alternatives to inaccessible scripted content. As our
screen reader survey shows
(http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey2/#javascript), most
screen reader users have scripting enabled and will get the scripted
content.
<noscript> has generally grown out-of-fashion. It's very purpose
promotes development in ways that are neither effective, nor that
support accessibility. Instead, a progressive enhancement approach
where accessible HTML content is presented and then scripting (or, in
your case, Flash) is used to enhanced or modify that content is a
better approach. But, it seems like the Flash replacement technique
you are using doing does this - just not very well for sighted users.
I can't really make a suitable recommendation - I'm not terribly
up-to-speed with Flash replacement techniques.
Jared Smith
WebAIM