[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/08/13]
I've only just joined the list and I would find it odd if this hasn't
already been mentioned. But I hate JavaScript so much I need to say
it, even if I'm redundant.
JavaScript as an idea is not bad. It can be useful to do things like
client-side checking of params to reduce bad requests to the server,
or limiting choices based upon previous selections without reloading
pages. But that's all it is good for--adding to the experience. Too
many people mistake it for required functionality, forgetting the browsers
that can't handle JavaScript and the people like myself, who find that
90% of all JavaScript is just crappy bells and whistles I don't want.
I really despise sites which require JvaScript to simply view or
navigate. There are the sites with onclick submits and no submit button
for the form; the ones that display blank pages; and the ones that
order you to enable JavaScript, and, if you do, show nothing that
even uses JavaScript. It's even worse when the sites are ones you
need to use, like the telephone directory (http://www.goudengids.nl)
or the train schedule (http://www.ns.nl). It ought to be illegal for
anything resembling a public service to do this.
A while ago I wrote a form letter which I now mail to the worst
offenders. I doubt they pay attention to my letter, given the pissy
tone and the fact that I'm just one person, but it makes me feel
a bit better. It would make me feel far better, however, if others
would also complain, because then maybe they would listen. The
letter is below.
------------------------
I am writing to express my disappointment with the redesign of your
site, which has chosen to ignore one of the key accessibility guidelines
recommended by W3C.
I hope that this was done out of ignorance and you will consider it
a priority to make your website accessible.
I refer to guideline 6.3, which involves making content accessible to
users without requiring scripting. This issue is rated at priority 1,
meaning that a site which does not comply with this recommendation
does not even qualify for the lowest accessibility rating (Conformance
Level A) available. Priority 1 is defined as: "A Web content developer
_must_ satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find
it impossible to access information in the document. Satisfying this
checkpoint is a basic requirement for some groups to be able to use
Web documents."
The web content accessibility guidelines can be perused at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
Information on fixing the issue I have highlighted is available here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#tech-scripts
------------------------
Generated at 14:02 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52