She didnt write it, she simply pointed it out and it's true. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12
I love it when .gov sites are written in CF... it makes me feel all giddy. ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com -----Original Message----- From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:45 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript Sandy... How is having javascript on your website causing a site to be "un-accessible"? That makes no sense. <!----------------//------ andy matthews web developer ICGLink, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 615.370.1530 x737 --------------//---------> -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I can tell you that section 508 and the WCAG both have a requirement that a page be able to work without javascript in order to be considered accessible. If you are required to build accessible web pages, then that is a major consideration. However, IBM demonstrated an accessible javascript which the new Firefox beta is supporting. Once that is widely available, I believe that the javascript disabled rule for accessibility will be deprecated. Sandra Clark -----Original Message----- From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) On 10/15/05, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build > and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that > as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable > JS, but it should be a minimal amount. > > Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > easy. > > However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > version of the page? > > I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do > you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > Thanks > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221202 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
