[thelist] Who really turns off JavaScript?

[Tom Dell'Aringa]

--- ben morrison <morrison.ben at gmail.com> wrote:

> > It's a common misconception that screen readers are text-only,
> > non-JS-capable user agents.
> 
> Bu they still have caveats - well they would wouldn't they, our job is
> never that simple.
> 
> http://www.boxofchocolates.ca/archives/2005/06/12/javascript-and-accessibility

That's some really interesting stuff there. Think about how we are embracing the "unobtrusive
javascript" methodology - which effectively removes inline events from the rendered page. So JAWS
doesn't see it and can't interact with it.

We probably almost all agree unobtrusive JS is a GoodThing(TM), but then you have this issue. And
we use UJS for plenty more than just a mouseover event. Obviously this issue primarily affects the
disabled who need some kind of assistance with a web page since they cannot interact with it
otherwise. Seems like the better we understand such interaction and how to best deal with it, the
better off we'll be.

Tom


http://www.pixelmech.com/

A man spoke frantically into the phone: "My wife is pregnant and her contractions are only two minutes apart"! "Is this her first child?" the doctor asked. "No, you idiot!" the man shouted. "This is her husband!"

Q: What do you call a muddy chicken who crossed the road two times?
A: A dirty double crosser...