E-mail List Archives
Thread: Javascript turned off a violation or user preference?
Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)
From: Judith.A.Blankman
Date: Tue, Apr 21 2015 4:09PM
Subject: Javascript turned off a violation or user preference?
No previous message | Next message →
The latest WebAIM survey indicates that 97.6% of respondents have javascript enabled. We are wondering about the remaining 2.4%.
If a person has javascript turned off and cannot perform the primary function of a site, like pay for and download a music file, or book a vacation, is this considered a user preference or a defect?
On the WebAIM site (http://webaim.org/techniques/javascript/) under the heading "JavaScript Reliance" 2nd paragraph it says:
"Accessibility guidelines also require scripted interfaces to be accessible. While WCAG 1.0 from 1999 required that pages be functional and accessible with scripting disabled, WCAG 2.0 and all other modern guidelines allow you to require JavaScript, but the scripted content or interactions must be compliant with the guidelines."
So do I interpret this to mean that when the site states that javascript is required, and javascript is turned off, that this is considered a user preference and not a defect on the site provided it's communicated clearly to that person? Is the Accessibility community in agreement about this?
We want to do the right thing, just don't want to introduce issues unknowingly. The developer understands the need for <noscript> alternatives for scripting, as described on http://webaim.org/techniques/javascript/alternatives.
It's a matter of timing and understanding if the lack of <noscript> alternatives at launch would be considered a barrier, an obstacle, or an annoyance.
Thanks,
Judith Blankman
Accessibility Strategist
Customer Experience (CX)
WFVC Digital | 1 Front Street | San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415-947-6583 | Cell: 415-601-1114
MAC: A0195-171
j<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
From: chaals
Date: Tue, Apr 21 2015 6:46PM
Subject: Re: Javascript turned off a violation or user preference?
← Previous message | Next message →
- Judith.A.Blankman@
22.04.2015, 00:09, " = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:
> The latest WebAIM survey indicates that 97.6% of respondents have javascript enabled. We are wondering about the remaining 2.4%.
>
> If a person has javascript turned off and cannot perform the primary function of a site, like pay for and download a music file, or book a vacation, is this considered a user preference or a defect?
I think this would actually depend on the nature of a function. If it is something that can be readily achieved without the use of javascript, and there is a design choice to require the javascript path for some reason not related to essential functionality, I would consider it a site defect. For example, paying for and downloading things, streaming video, processing personal information, are examples where I don't see a need for javascript.
But if the site does something that by its nature requires javascript to be effective, for example a collaborative editing package, then I would consider it reasonable to require javascript on the part of the user.
My impression is that this is about the "middle of the road" consensus, although people will dissent in both directions. I am perhaps less accepting of simply insisting on javascript than a hypothetical average…
There is a clear increase in the number of people willing to say it is a user problem if they choose to disable javascript. In my opinion there are still legitimate but not very common reasons for people doing so, making it a question that doesn't have a general yes/no answer
cheers
Chaals
> On the WebAIM site (http://webaim.org/techniques/javascript/) under the heading "JavaScript Reliance" 2nd paragraph it says:
>
> "Accessibility guidelines also require scripted interfaces to be accessible. While WCAG 1.0 from 1999 required that pages be functional and accessible with scripting disabled, WCAG 2.0 and all other modern guidelines allow you to require JavaScript, but the scripted content or interactions must be compliant with the guidelines."
>
> So do I interpret this to mean that when the site states that javascript is required, and javascript is turned off, that this is considered a user preference and not a defect on the site provided it's communicated clearly to that person? Is the Accessibility community in agreement about this?
>
> We want to do the right thing, just don't want to introduce issues unknowingly. The developer understands the need for <noscript> alternatives for scripting, as described on http://webaim.org/techniques/javascript/alternatives.
>
> It's a matter of timing and understanding if the lack of <noscript> alternatives at launch would be considered a barrier, an obstacle, or an annoyance.
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Tue, Apr 21 2015 6:51PM
Subject: Re: Javascript turned off a violation or user preference?
← Previous message | Next message →
> > If a person has javascript turned off and cannot perform the primary function of a site, like pay for and download a music file, or book a vacation, is this considered a user preference or a defect?
You should also consider if a site doesn't rely on JavaScript for the functionality but requires the presence of JavaScript to access it -- this could be a failure of WCAG conformance requirements. I know that statement seems silly but this could happen.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703-637-8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
From: _mallory
Date: Thu, Apr 23 2015 12:35AM
Subject: Re: Javascript turned off a violation or user preference?
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:46:14AM +0200, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> There is a clear increase in the number of people willing to say it is a user problem if they choose to disable javascript. In my opinion there are still legitimate but not very common reasons for people doing so, making it a question that doesn't have a general yes/no answer
>
People "turning it off" are making a choice.
Gov.uk (and others) with large numbers of users are able to determine
that, of the small number of users that don't have Javascript, only
a part of that number are people turning it off. The rest have shitty
bandwidth, or entered a tunnel right after the request, or the site
had an error in the scripting that prevented anything else from
running (it happens). It is then not their choice.
...which I find handy when people start in on whether or not it's
a moral dilemma (rather than the direct question of WCAG failure).
_mallory
From: Graham Armfield
Date: Thu, Apr 23 2015 1:56AM
Subject: Re: Javascript turned off a violation or user preference?
← Previous message | Next message →
Please also remember that some people will be browsing in corporate
environments, with older operating systems and arcane rules about desktop
software and security. In some cases this does include blocking JavaScript.
These people also don't have a choice.
FWIW they are also likely to be running significantly outdated version of
AT where they're using it - eg Jaws, Dragon, etc.
Regards
Graham
On 23 Apr 2015 07:35, "_mallory" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ');>> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:46:14AM +0200, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ');> wrote:
> > There is a clear increase in the number of people willing to say it is a
> user problem if they choose to disable javascript. In my opinion there are
> still legitimate but not very common reasons for people doing so, making it
> a question that doesn't have a general yes/no answer
> >
>
> People "turning it off" are making a choice.
>
> Gov.uk (and others) with large numbers of users are able to determine
> that, of the small number of users that don't have Javascript, only
> a part of that number are people turning it off. The rest have shitty
> bandwidth, or entered a tunnel right after the request, or the site
> had an error in the scripting that prevented anything else from
> running (it happens). It is then not their choice.
>
> ...which I find handy when people start in on whether or not it's
> a moral dilemma (rather than the direct question of WCAG failure).
>
> _mallory
> > > > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',' = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ');>
>
--
Regards
Graham Armfield
coolfields.co.uk <http://www.coolfields.co.uk/>;
M:07905 590026
T: 01483 856613
@coolfields <https://twitter.com/coolfields>
From: deborah.kaplan
Date: Thu, Apr 23 2015 9:05AM
Subject: Re: Javascript turned off a violation or user preference?
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, _mallory wrote:
>
> People "turning it off" are making a choice.
That choice can be accessibility-prompted, however. I toggle JS on and off all day, and the "off" states are 95% likely to be prompted by Javascript making a site inaccessible (usually javascript modal dialog boxes that pop up and can't be accessibly dismissed, but sometimes non-keyboard accessible navigation, or dynamic page elements that misbehave in the presence of keyboard focus). I understand it's rare to disable it, but the reasons can be quite relevant to accessibility.
Deborah Kaplan
From: _mallory
Date: Fri, Apr 24 2015 3:49AM
Subject: Re: Javascript turned off a violation or user preference?
← Previous message | No next message
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:05:45AM -0400, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, _mallory wrote:
> >
> >People "turning it off" are making a choice.
>
> That choice can be accessibility-prompted, however.
Good point! In those cases I also don't really consider it a real
choice either: it's not that they don't want Javascript, it's that
Javascript is running some things that make using the page near
impossible.
_mallory