@Patrick You seem to be very 'touched' by these genuine remarks I am making. You should not jump to a (very wrong) conclusion that I don't know much about accessibility. I am very comfortable within the area having worked on making a major e-commerce site fully Web2.0 and AAA accessible and knowing exactly how much work there is to build solutions which are both fully featured JS wise and accessible without JS.
I think I have made it clear enough times so far that work-without-JS is not the only accessibility issue I know of (I think that various colour, font, sizing, etc. guidelines even the birds on the trees understand and know by now and they are usually matters which can be dealt with using semantic HTML and a few simple tweaks in CSS). However, work-without-JS **is** a major development overhead when it comes to developing web apps, and my argument (for the Nth time now) is that in majority of the cases work-without-JS is not worth the effort which example of both Google (e.g. Calendar) and Yahoo (e.g. Flickr) exemplifies very well. Both corporations (however) will evangelise at us how we need to make our solutions fully progressively enhanced even theirs aren't. You are not really addressing my points, you are simply always coming back with: 'JS is not the only (accessibility) issue' and 'Jason is ignorant' and so on. Come with something more concrete? A concrete example perhaps? Do you have a web app which you have coded (on your own) which is fully accessible with JS? If so, show us. If not, why not? If not, do you really feel you should be so vocal in talking about this issue since you are more than likely (in that circumstance) to not fully be understanding what I am talking about? I know I may be sounding a bit harsh, but the bottom line is that we need to start getting real about some of these things I reckon. By the way, I am not calling you ignorant or other names, since I don't know you and generally have respect for other web devs, so I think you ought to start using a more intellectual approach for the sake of the list and not making yourself look less clever than you actually are. On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <re...@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote: >> >> @Thierry >> Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in >> 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). > > Even large corporations can be as misguided as you, Jason. > >> Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with regards to HTML? >> Yes both of those mega-corporations are heavily involved in >> 'specifying the future HTML standards' in fact Google are 'running' >> the HTML5 spec. > > And they're also part of the effort for accessibility > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#acknowledgments > > Whether they then follow the guidance they themselves have worked on is > another matter, as with any large corporation. However, this does not give > you a get-out-of-jail-free card. > > Hey, http://www.google.co.uk still uses tables (!!!) for layout. Maybe I > should stop using CSS altogether then, if they don't either? > >> I am guessing that Google's GWT Java library is a big reason why their >> AJAX tools don't work with JS off, but it's a great example of where >> 'lack of resources' mean lack of accessibility. By resources I mean: >> time, money and skill, as outlined in my article. > > For the last time: accessibility != making it work without JavaScript. It > does mean that, with JavaScript, it's still accessible and usable (with > keyboard, or screenreader, or screen magnifier, etc). > >> Have we concluded on 'reality of today' now, or do we need to continue >> down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route? > > Look, let's do it this way: let's agree to disagree. You can go off and feel > that you've proven your point, while the rest of us can get on with actually > understanding the implications of modern, standards-based, usable and > accessible web development. > > P > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > ______________________________________________________________ > re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively > [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] > > www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk > http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ > ______________________________________________________________ > Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force > http://webstandards.org/ > ______________________________________________________________ > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******************************************************************* > > -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
