Posted by Chaddy2222 on 06/28/07 13:00

On Jun 28, 8:22 pm, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 28 Jun, 08:38, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm, yes I had a read of that. It sounds good although one thing I am
> > not sure of is how exactly they want developers to make javascript and
> > such content accessible without placeing items in a <noscript> tag,
>
> <noscript> never really worked, was never really appropriate, and was
> almost never used correctly.
>
> The basic rule for JavaScript on Web 1.0 pages is that it should never
> be necessary. use it for rollovers, decoration, gimmickery etc. but
> lay off using it for the core function. In these cases, you don't need
> to dupe it into <noscript> at all.
>
> There are very few cases where JavaScript can be replaced by
> <noscript>. If you're using client-side JavaScript to generate
> content, then it's usually simply better to do this server-side
> anyway. You might (in WCAG world) have to do just this to populate the
> <noscript> that you'd be better off avoiding the need for altogether.
>
> Web 2.0 is different. If you're AJAXing your content into place with
> asynch loads, then there's just no way to replace that with any sort
> of static notice in a <noscript>. The fix here is to fall back to a
> Web 1.0 implementation instead, with lots of <form>s, page submissions
> and round-tripping the whole page back to the server. This gets
> really messy to try and cover both patterns on a single page, so
> you're often better doing it as two separates.
Well yes, I think that is the type of thing I was thinking of,
personally I would just do the lot server side, considering the
availibility of band width now a days it's really not a big deal to
just let the server deal with processing form data etc.

>
> There's never a need to make any _page_ accessible -- it's always an
> alternative to offer an accessible page _in_addition_. Although good
> CSS techniques make this costly process unneccessary for general
> design work, it can be a reasonable approach when you're doing AJAX
> and similar work.
>
That makes a lot of sence realy. It's all the more reason for useing
server side technology instead of doing thing client side and needing
too then code stuff on the server anyway just in case.

> If you're going this deeply into things, you really need to be using
> an MVC pattern too. You'll maybe build it without, but you wouldn't
> want to maintain it afterwards.
I had too google some of what you ment in that previous sentence but I
think I get the idea.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

[Back to original message]