> You're probably right about getting in trouble, I already feel the > accessibility folks will come kicking and screaming if they hear about > this! ;-) But seriously: A little proactivity wouldn't hurt here - > after all, Rails also created the whole Convention Over Configuration > buzz, wasn't it? It may well be that it can also give birth to a > _real_ unobtrusive javascript movement that really influences the way > people think about accessibility.
I just don't think it's something we should be proactive about. Making the ajax case that much harder to theoretically get accessibility benefits doesn't seem like something we should be doing. If there's a way for us to make extend the helpers to make it easier to add fallback cases, then I'd be happy to hear about those. But if it's just a question of either: * Hand Code and be accessible * use helpers and don't be Then I think we can just leave the helpers as is and people who feel strongly about it can start a community talking about how to avoid the helpers, get some best practises brewing etc. > As I said earlier, it's not so much about the current functionality > being a problem but more about the (IMO) better solution standing > right in front of us and (so far) being ignored. Given how widely used the current fuctionality is, then we'd need to see much better adoption of the better solution before we could do something like this. If something easier, and more accesible emerges then we can go for it, but personally I definitely prefer to use link_to_remote over link_to with some class then inject the ajax functionality onload. -- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
