> >I found that some of these elements take quite some time to > >integrate. Creating high-contrast CSS can take up to a day (or more > >if you're new to it), non-Javascript states usually more than an > >hour because you also have to edit the script.
> By "non-Javascript states" do you mean that the website should work > in the absence of JavaScript? I like to think that this is where web > development should begin, with JavaScript added to enhance, not to > provide core functionality. Why? Most modern accessibility aids (eg: font increase, JAWS, etc) use an existing browser, which can handle javascript. Google processes javascript and RDF tags. I've only ever heard a single argument as to why javascript-disabled should apply as a baseline for websites, specifically: if some percentage has JS disabled, you would be losing those visitors -> which of course can be measured. Is there any other strong aruguments for making pages available, without javascript enabled? regards Mathew Robertson PS. Gut-feel tells me that non-JS should work, so thats how I prefer to code. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [email protected] *******************************************************************
