|
|
Posted by Chris Morris on 05/17/05 20:31
"Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> writes:
> Chris Morris wrote:
> > One of the reasons I don't bank online is because all the banking
> > sites I've seen *require* javascript, often Internet Explorer,
> > etc....
>
> Thank you. When you purchase or use a web application, you are
> agreeing to follow the rules needed to run that application. It is no
> more discriminating for a web based application to require popup
> windows (javascript, flash, etc...) than it is for Yahoo radio to
> require something that will play sound in order to use it. It is just
> a requirement of the software.
Firstly: That's my _personal_ reason for not using certain web
applications. That's not the reason that someone with particular
disabilities would have. I have a choice to use or not to use that
application. Someone else may not have that choice.
It's reasonable to ask someone to have particular hardware/software to
use something *up to the point* where they can't do that because of a
disability. At that point - under UK law, at least - it becomes the
responsibility of the _service provider_ to provide a reasonable
alternative.
Secondly:
Yahoo radio needs sound because radio is a sound-based medium. There
is no other practical [1] way to implement radio.
Web applications that use Javascript (flash, pop-ups, etc) fall into
two categories:
1. those where it's genuinely necessary to use that to get the
required functionality and it's just not practical to provide the
same functionality otherwise.
2. those where it could quite easily be done without using any of
those, but it requires (*not* 'works better with' - *requires*)
them anyway.
Case 2 is the problematic one, and the reason that I personally don't
trust some banking sites and why some people may be _unable_ to use
those sites.
Case 1 is fine - the main web application I've written unavoidably
uses Javascript (and recent Mozilla/IE only Javascript, at that) for
one of the main pieces of functionality. However, it doesn't require
Javascript to do any of the other functions, and if you don't have
Javascript there is a substitute - though inevitably with less
functionality - that lets you in theory do the same thing.
I've no objection to web applications that use Javascript (or
whatever) because that's the *only* way to do something, and it has to
be done that way. I use some myself.
Likewise I've no objection to web applications that will work without
Javascript but are easier to use with Javascript because of (e.g.)
additional client-side input validation, dynamic auto-completion of
forms, etc. Again, I use some myself.
What I object to is web applications that require Javascript, not
because there's no sensible way to do it without it, but because the
developer of the web application didn't implement that sensible way. I
tend to avoid these because I'm not sure what else (like security,
data integrity, etc) they didn't implement sensibly. Other people will
avoid them because it is literally impossible for them to use them.
[1] Actually, if voice recognition software improved enough, it might
be possible to make a sound driver that converted (either client or
server side) from sound to a transcript. But for now, not practical.
--
Chris
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|