On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 21:42 -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote:

> > Actually, you can make a site today that uses JAvascript to enhance
> > functionality. 
> I'd say a <title> fits that category. You can live without it.
> > Something as simple as a title for a page shouldn't be
> > relying on Javascript to function!
> Shouldn't = I agree. 
> Sometimes the way a page is coded, it does have to be that way.

That just means that the code is poorly thought out. Consider:

$body = "html and content here";

Look, now we have the body content, and it's not printed. Do this at the
top of the page before any output and you know what to expect.
Frameworks do it like this, it's not something new and magic I've just
thought up.

> I'm working on one now, where the way the UX guy made the DIV's (so that
> when using
> A mobile phone, the menu is at the bottom) it makes it very difficult to
> populate
> The title with my gui_header.php and gui_footer.php and gui_nav.php
> components.
> Also, I render in a top down fashion, so I output:
>       1. the header, 
>       2. then the navigation, 
>       3. body content
>       4. footer
> I can't populate the title when I've already output it and don't know what
> page in the navigation the user is currently on. Sure I could jump through
> hoops and pre-process the nav and use output buffering or something, but
> whatev.

That just shows that the code hasn't been thought out as well as it
could be then

> Hence, I use JS to populate at the end of the PHP rendering.
> Just sayin'. ;-)
> > It's worth pointing out that in the
> > UK there is something called the Disability Discrimination 
> > Act, in which
> > it is an offense to unfairly penalise someone based on a disability.
> > Now, call me stupid, but how many speech or Braille browsers 
> > do you know
> > with Javascript support, and if there are any, do they support all the
> > Javascript that some people rely on to make their site 
> > accomplish basic
> > functionality
> Not to sound like a jerk or diminish the plight of disabled people, 
> but how many Braille browsers can parse Flash? Or use AJAX then? 
> Or Silverlight? Or umpteen other technologies. 

Exactly, and a site should not be relying solely on them either. The WAI
guidelines clearly show that alternative content should be offered in
the case of plugins such as Flash and Silverlight where possible, like
text transcripts of audio dialogue, and scene descriptions for video.
Sometimes it isn't possible, as in the case of some online games (spot
the difference perhaps) built in Flash, but these are fringe cases and
not the majority.

> Your point, while good in theory is far from practical or realistic.

It's not about practicality, but consideration. A blind user can no
longer rely on your javascript-only menus and Ajax-driven content.
Someone with severe arthritis might navigate with their keyboard and not
the mouse, what happens to all those Javascript onmouseover event
handlers now?

I've been arguing this whole point for a few years now to many people.
It's not an issue that will go away with the argument that it's just not
feasible or realistic or practical. There are 1.6million registered
blind in the UK, which is not a small number no matter how you try and
twist the statistics. 3.4 millions people have a disability that
prevents them using a standard keyboard and mouse. Are you really
willing to shun so many people because your work would become more
difficult otherwise?


Reply via email to