2011/12/21 Daniel <dbchristop...@gmail.com>: > While this is a fine technique, I don't bother catering much towards > these edge cases anymore. Disabling Javascript is a choice, and it's > one that only computer savvy people would make. Considering people > without Javascript hasn't been an accessibility concern for the past > decade. Progressive enhancement is important inherently static sites > (like blogs), but for modern "web apps" it's really not worth your > time. >
If you dont think of your 1-2 percent of audience in any ways that is your problem. Just think of the not too advanced crawlers that dont use JavaScript, Or think of company policies that are to protect the users from harm that are based on JavaScript in browsers nowadays. And I also know a lot of users that disable JavaScript just to get rid of all the annoying ads that some sites push into your face. Also there are users with disabilities that use a keyboard like only device, and mouse events are not usable for them. So unless your site is only usable with JavaScript you should make at least minimal effort to make it accessible without JavaScript, like the approaches mentioned above. It doesn't really matter, which one you chose, but use one for those that require them. It doesn't require more then 5 minutes for the problem that opened the whole discussion and it gives you 1-2 percent more users that can use the site, which can mean thousands of dollars in revenue. > I love this comment from the article "Styling HTML5 Elements: An > Irresponsible choice (http://www.viget.com/inspire/html5-elements- > irresponsible-choice-right-now/)": > > "Websites are really web applications these days, and JavaScript is an > integral and crucial component of the browser. Turning off JavaScript > and then expecting everything to work is like removing your video card > and then trying to play World of Warcraft using your printer. Yeah, > blizzard could have implemented some sort of text based version of wow > but what’s the point? " > > > > On Dec 16, 7:05 am, "Claus Reinke" <claus.rei...@talk21.com> wrote: >> There is a widespread pattern on the web that I don't understand. >> >> I start with the problem statement, then suggest a workaround >> that I would like to get feedback on. I close with the suggestion >> that the interplay of CSS and noscript could be improved by a >> :noscript CSS-pseudoselector. >> >> Take Google+ as an example, though there are many Javascript- >> using sites with similar issues. Pages start with something like >> >> <style> >> body { visibility: hidden; } >> </style> >> >> and then Javascript is used to override that default. For instance >> >> https://plus.google.com/111191895515210271225/posts/HN2ZTbf7Cgg >> >> I assume there is some rationale for hiding content by default? >> Perhaps it is that if one shows content by default, there would >> be a flash of uncontrolled content before the scripts run. >> >> The problem is that users who disable Javascript by default see >> nothing at all on such sites, even though the content could be >> read just fine by removing the default styling. Try the example. >> >> If the rationale above is correct, there would seem to be a simple >> workaround, which is to hide content via a css class, and to attach >> that class dynamically, before the content is parsed and rendered. >> That way content is hidden by default only when script is enabled: >> >> .. >> <style> >> .script .hidden {display:none} >> </style> >> </head> >> >> <body> >> >> <script> >> document.body.className = "script"; >> </script> >> >> <!-- no script: text visible --> >> <!-- with script: text not visible by default, >> can be made visible by script, when ready >> --> >> <div class="hidden"> >> hear this >> </div> >> .. >> >> Am I missing something here? If this works as expected, then >> why do major players like Google+ (don't get me started on >> Twitter) fail to make their content accessible to non-Javascript >> users? >> >> While looking into this, it occurred to me that the noscript >> element isn't half as useful as it could be - in particular, we >> might be better of with script/noscript CSS-pseudoselectors: >> >> <style> >> :script { display: none } >> </style> >> >> I would like your feedback on these observations: am I on >> the right track? >> >> Claus -- Poetro -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
