[thelist] Incorporating a NOSCRIPT declaration where the script is in the header

Christian Heilmann codepo8 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 25 15:22:40 CST 2006


> Not really: the first two rely on PHP which isn't installed on the
> Client's server (and won't be).

Then create the links via JavaScript, as explained in the unobtrusive
course. However, an accessibility / usability enhancement solely
relying on JavaScript is a house of cards.

> Looking at the http://icant.co.uk/sandbox/noscript/ suggestion, that
> throws up the same warning I posted originally, so we're back at
> square 1.

A warning is not an error, it is a warning, telling that something
might be amiss. Validators are dumb, and are not human. The existence
of a SCRIPT element does not mean at all that there is functionality
that depends on JavaScript, and only that one would warrant a NOSCRIPT
as a hack. Clever, modern scripting actually adds functionality that
only works with scripting enabled, which means that a NOSCRIPT would
only hint at functionality that might still be impossible to use.

NOSCRIPT is deprecated in modern HTML derivates, by the way, which
means that if you believe validators more than humans you will have a
Catch 22, as both 508 and AAA require the HTML document to be valid.
About 4 years of accessibility consulting give me a very strong
impression that in nowadays user agent environment, a AAA compliance
is impossible if you want the site to be usable and up to modern
beauty standards aswell (A is not that hard).

http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/automated-tools.shtml

By the way, what would your "noscript" replacement say?

"We are sorry, but this functionality that we wanted to apply to help
you requires JavaScript, so please turn on JavaScript or use the style
switching facility of your user agent if you know that it has one and
where it is"?



More information about the thelist mailing list