On Jun 1, 4:09 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:
VK wrote:
On Jun 1, 2:56 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.dewrote:
>It works.
It does not. The document is empty. For a user with disabilities, a
search engine, a user behind a filtering proxy, a user with a not so
sophisticated mobile device and so on. You are blinding yourself to
the possibilities of access to a Web application if you call this
nonsense working.
For the users with disabilities I would highly suggest do not follow the
W3C's approach when a bunch of healthy people (possible mental
disabilities being disregarded) are getting together to decide what is
most needed for people with disabilities.
Please spare us your delusions about what the W3C is or is not. After
having read your W3C-related blog entry at <http://comvkmisc.blogs pot.com/>,
nobody in their right mind would consider your statements to be relevant
anymore.
This blog post is my comment on
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-html-de...iples-20071126
which indeed gave me at the moment a hope for W3C so I planned to
comment on the further development. Alas hardcoded ones won again with
4.01 updates never accepted and HTML 5 pushed into "somewhere in a few
years or so or better never". It is very misfortune because after W3C
being inevitably faded out of the Web authorities list we're coming
back to the old situation of non-intermediated browser producer wars
with IE still hugely dominating on the market. Maybe it was a
strategic mistake of WHATWG to join W3C and giving up their HTML 5
working base as some "initial membership fee". By keep their original
position of a group of reasonable thinking technical specialists being
in opposition to a group of fanatic pedants: by saving this position
they could try to transfer the standardization authority from W3C to
WHATWG. Such transfer would be supported by many IMO. And now
themselves and their HTML 5 are buried in the regular endless XHTML,
"informatio nal objects" and other useless crap. That is IMO - and what
exactly connection does it have with a site accessibility or
usability?
6. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
View profile
Hide options Jun 1, 4:09 pm
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javas cript
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:09:16 +0200
Local: Sun, Jun 1 2008 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: Javascript on the client as an alternative to Perl/PHP/
Python on the server
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
VK wrote:
On Jun 1, 2:56 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.dewrote:
>>It works.
It does not. The document is empty. For a user with disabilities, a
search engine, a user behind a filtering proxy, a user with a not so
sophisticate d mobile device and so on. You are blinding yourself to
the possibilities of access to a Web application if you call this
nonsense working.
For the users with disabilities I would highly suggest do not follow the
W3C's approach when a bunch of healthy people (possible mental
disabilities being disregarded) are getting together to decide what is
most needed for people with disabilities.
Please spare us your delusions about what the W3C is or is not. After
having read your W3C-related blog entry at <http://
comvkmisc.blogs pot.com/>,
nobody in their right mind would consider your statements to be
relevant
anymore.
We could make a cross-group discussion on the sub-subject in c.l.j.,
comp.human-factors and alt.comp.blind-users.
Or we could simply call you an incompetent delusional troll.
I would exclude ciwah because from my previous experience similar
discussions in there are attracting side spoilers - thus people w/o
disabilities but pretending to be such to enforce their opinions on the
subject. alt.comp.blind-users is more reliable because the regulars can
easily detect a "black sheep" in the thread.
Talking about "black sheeps in the thread" is a joke when it comes
from you,
and a bad one at that. You are evidently not capable of taking part
in a
serious technical discussion; your inability or unwillingness to
accept
proven facts as the truth, to break out from your little fantasy world
is
too much of a hindrance for that.
>From the current topics I see that Javascript is the least of concerns of
blind users:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...wse_frm/thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...wse_frm/thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...6704254dc18bcb
That blind users or users with impaired vision might not recognize this as a
problem constitutes no evidence that there is no problem with this.
That is just hilarious. So, who cares what actual accessibility
problems user with disabilities are experiencing, right? They will
experience only problems, defined by a set of selected people, any
other problems are not allowed. :-)
btw Amazon.com was always known for Javascript-independent design.
Turn the scripting off and try to shop - no problem. Yet it is a hate
target of visually impaired users. Anyone of "accessibil ity fighters"
here or at ciwah ever asked them why exactly? I didn't yet but in
these groups there are so many people who's heart is bleeding about
the accessibility, at least based on their posts. Did they ever
investigate the matter so do not repro it in their own solutions and
advises?
There is nothing to investigate there as nothing was said about blind users
in particular. That said, that text browsers usually do not support
client-side ECMAScript-compliant scripting and the APIs under discussion
here should be indication enough that there is a problem with an empty
document filled through these techniques for users with impaired vision.
For the starter one should investigate do such user consider
Javascript as an accessibility helper or an accessibility spoiler. A
link I gave suggests the first, but again: let's talk about it with
them. At least the idea that every one of them is on Lynx-like agent
is a nonsustaining urban legend INHO.