Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 61
  1. #46
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    620
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 20 Times in 20 Posts
    This may be interesting: A Google search for "accessibility javascript discrimination lawsuit" turned up the Wiki link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_acc..._accessibility which includes:

    United Kingdom

    In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 does not refer explicitly to website accessibility, but makes it illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities. The Act applies to anyone providing a service; public, private and voluntary sectors. The Code of Practice: Rights of Access - Goods, Facilities, Services and Premises document[8] published by the government's Equality and Human Rights Commission to accompany the Act does refer explicitly to websites as one of the "services to the public" which should be considered covered by the Act.
    Notice that it even applies to the private and voluntary sectors.

  2. #47
    The fat guy next door VIPStephan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Halle (Saale), Germany
    Posts
    8,606
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 997 Times in 970 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rnd me View Post
    The cost of supporting them might not be negligible.
    Depending on the purpose of the site it actually might because you’re ideally building the non-JS version at first anyway and enhancing it with JS then. Of course, this doesn’t apply if we’re talking about the next photo editing web application but really, most websites don’t fall into this category, not even online banking services or web marketplaces (in theory such could be built without the need of JS and still with a totally acceptable user experience).

    Quote Originally Posted by rnd me View Post
    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and compelling experience for most is better than a bland experience for all.
    Well, besides the fact that a well designed site (let’s take a web marketplace as example) doesn’t have a “bland experience” in the first place, even without JS, it is quite an exaggeration to state that the bland experience would apply to everybody. As said, even if a non-JS version would result in a “bland” experience, it would certainly only affect those people with JS disabled. That doesn’t mean, however, that they should be completely ignored and get a completely unusable site, or that one should make their experience deliberately bland just to show them.

    And personally, I don’t like the attitude that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few because most of the times today in our developed and civilized societies, there are almost no vital needs that could really justify ignoring and overruling a minority just because they are fewer in numbers. But that’s getting quite philosophical so I’m just leaving it like that without going into the details of my thesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    What's wrong with html4? It's still the latest standard. html5 is still in development and will be for quite a few years yet. So why use a currently half baked html5 standard which may be different when it is finalised years down the track to what it is now.
    I’ll have to agree with this.
    Last edited by VIPStephan; 03-04-2012 at 11:41 PM.

  3. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    656
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 69 Times in 69 Posts
    [ot]

    Quote Originally Posted by rnd me View Post
    the lesson is much the same as from the early 20th century when cars were getting better, faster, and cheaper every year. Many folks said they were waiting for the price and performance to get to a certain level. When it did, they wanted to wait until it got even cheaper. Henry Ford pointed out that cars will always get cheaper and faster, it's a matter of how long you want to walk before you start driving.
    yes I suppose that's one way of looking at it but imo there is still too much inconsistency between the major browsers for html5 support and way too much uncertainty on how much different html5 will be years down the track when it is officially recommended by the w3c to what it is today.

    I suspect a lot of pages built with html5 today will break in a few years when html5 is eventually finalised.

    Do you recall the history behind the need for quirksmode as a result of web authors jumping the gun in the past? History will most likely repeat itself when html5 is eventually recommended by the w3c.

    The point I am in effect making is that unless you really, really, really need to use draft html5 specific elements right now, you are more likely to still have a robust web page when html5 is released if you use the the Strict doctype for either xhtml or html4. Both will still happily render away successfully in browsers when html5 is finally recommended by the w3c in years down the track.


    [/ot]
    Last edited by webdev1958; 03-04-2012 at 11:41 PM.

  4. #49
    Master Coder felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    6,590
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 644 Times in 634 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    Do you recall the history behind the need for quirksmode as a result of web authors jumping the gun in the past? History will most likely repeat itself when html5 is eventually recommended by the w3c.
    Very true. The entire reason for quirks mode was too many people implementing pages that relied on the draft version of CSS 2 that was implemented in IE5 - which came out just before the draft was changed to completely change how the box model worked.

    There are currently lots of things in the HTML 5 draft that are contradictory or unnecessary that will obviously need to be cleaned up before HTML 5 becomes a standard. For example consider the following HTML 5 tag:

    Code:
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">
    The required attribute requires that the field contain some content while the pattern attribute requires that the field be empty - and so that input field must always fail validation. Obviously the required attribute needs to be deleted from the draft as it is unnecessary since pattern="^.+$" means exactly the same thing (except for not being able tospecify that a field must contain zero and at least one character at the same time).
    Stephen
    Learn Modern JavaScript - http://javascriptexample.net/
    Helping others to solve their computer problem at http://www.felgall.com/

    Don't forget to start your JavaScript code with "use strict"; which makes it easier to find errors in your code.

  5. #50
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    620
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 20 Times in 20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Just consider how much supposed JavaScript you see that contains any of the following long dead code: alert, prompt
    What newer code do you use to tell the user of unusual situations and get back a response on how to handle them?

  6. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    656
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 69 Times in 69 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jalarie View Post
    What newer code do you use to tell the user of unusual situations and get back a response on how to handle them?
    There is nothing actually wrong with using alert() or prompt(). The only thing I don't like about them is that they look "ugly".

    There are many alternatives you can use like Lightbox effects or you can customise your own "popup" alert and prompt boxes using just plain html and css and some basic javascript to process any user inputs.

    If you customise your own alert and prompt popups you can make them look and function however you like. And you don't need any html5/css3 features at all.
    Last edited by webdev1958; 03-05-2012 at 02:42 AM.

  7. #52
    Senior Coder Logic Ali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,028
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 207 Times in 202 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    You are not even remotely qualified to give me legal advice as you have attempted in the past and your "legal advice" is at best total garbage and at worst blatant cowardly lies in my particular circumstances.
    I would expect your legal adviser to advise you that it is inadvisable to take legal advice from anyone in a different jurisdiction to your own.

  8. #53
    Senior Coder Logic Ali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,028
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 207 Times in 202 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VIPStephan View Post
    OK, it might be very low in percentage, and hits are not equal to unique visitors (one visitor can make several hits, or several hits can come from one visitor only, respectively) but shows that it’s certainly possible that people browse without JS. I don’t see any reason to exclude them, especially when it’s not a lot of additional effort to provide proper accessibility.
    As far as I'm concerned the only remotely safe way to surf the web is with JS disabled by default, only enabling it selectively as required with the ability to exclude third-party code and iframe generation.
    In so doing I encounter a shamefully high proportion of sites that render nothing or practically nothing without JS, a situation compounded by the total absence of any warning as to why nothing is appearing.
    That state of affairs in itself must constitute a widespread accessibility issue.

  9. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    656
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 69 Times in 69 Posts
    [ot]

    Quote Originally Posted by Logic Ali View Post
    I would expect your legal adviser to advise you that it is inadvisable to take legal advice from anyone in a different jurisdiction to your own.
    Yep that is totally correct and common sense also tells me to treat as garbage any "legal advice" from people not at all qualified to give it to me and to consider legal advice only from those who have the qualifications I require them to have.

    There are too many wannabe lawyers in forums who have no idea what they are talking about in regard to my particular circumstances and many of them don't like being reminded of that fact.

    [/ot]
    Last edited by webdev1958; 03-05-2012 at 05:42 AM.

  10. #55
    Master Coder felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    6,590
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 644 Times in 634 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    There is nothing actually wrong with using alert() or prompt(). The only thing I don't like about them is that they look "ugly".
    .
    In Opera they all have a "Disable JavaScript for this page" checkbox.

    In IE9 the second one to pop up has a "disable further dialogs" link.

    So you can't expect more than one to ever pop up. They are intended for debugging purposes only (for those who don't know how to use the built in debugger) which is why browsers are starting to include options in the dialog itself to disable further dialogs (just in case you get stuck in a loop). I have images of both the Opera and IE alert boxes showing the extra option at http://javascriptexample.net/badjs12.php - the confirm and prompt dialogs have the same extra options in those browsers allowing your visitor to disable part or all of your script.

    There's nothing wrong with using the dialogs for debugging a script but they should be removed before it goes live to prevent your visitors from changing the functioning of your page.

    The correct way to do dialogs in modern browsers is to build your own using a lightbox script - that way your visitor's can't turn them off with the extra option you didn't want to be there.
    Last edited by felgall; 03-05-2012 at 05:45 AM.
    Stephen
    Learn Modern JavaScript - http://javascriptexample.net/
    Helping others to solve their computer problem at http://www.felgall.com/

    Don't forget to start your JavaScript code with "use strict"; which makes it easier to find errors in your code.

  11. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    656
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 69 Times in 69 Posts
    Like I went on to say after that -

    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    There are many alternatives you can use like Lightbox effects or you can customise your own "popup" alert and prompt boxes using just plain html and css and some basic javascript to process any user inputs.

    If you customise your own alert and prompt popups you can make them look and function however you like. And you don't need any html5/css3 features at all.

  12. #57
    Master Coder felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    6,590
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 644 Times in 634 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    Like I went on to say after that -
    I was agreeing with that part of what you said.

    I was pointing out the reason why alert, confirm, antd prompt should never be used in live script - the extra options they offer that you don't really want your visitors to be able to access. It isn't just a matter of them looking ugly (since some browsers now make them look like you used a lightbox script so they don't necessarily look ugly).

    After all what's the point in using alerts to display the error message if the biggest link that displays on the second one for all your visitors using IE9 ensures that no more alerts will display on that page regardless of the continuing errors that your script detects. With a lightbox the error messages will continue to display.

    Another alternative with form validation is to simply put the JavaScript error messages in the same spot in the page that the server side validation will put them.
    Stephen
    Learn Modern JavaScript - http://javascriptexample.net/
    Helping others to solve their computer problem at http://www.felgall.com/

    Don't forget to start your JavaScript code with "use strict"; which makes it easier to find errors in your code.

  13. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    656
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 69 Times in 69 Posts
    I'm not going to tell anyone they must not use alert boxes for purposes other than debugging because the bottom line is that depending on functionality it is a personal choice whether to use the default or customised alert boxes.

    I still use alerts in some circumstances, although not very often, and will continue to use them where it is a valid option for me.

  14. #59
    Master Coder felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    6,590
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 644 Times in 634 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    I'm not going to tell anyone they must not use alert boxes for purposes other than debugging because the bottom line is that depending on functionality it is a personal choice whether to use the default or customised alert boxes.
    The debugging options in alert etc in Opera and IE9 can't be turned off.

    If you display an alert in Opera it contains the option to turn off JavaScript completely for the current page. If you display a second alert in IE9 it contains the option to turn off all future alerts for that page. The same applies to confirm and prompt.

    Why would you want to display a message that asks your visitors to turn off your script?
    Stephen
    Learn Modern JavaScript - http://javascriptexample.net/
    Helping others to solve their computer problem at http://www.felgall.com/

    Don't forget to start your JavaScript code with "use strict"; which makes it easier to find errors in your code.

  15. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    656
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 69 Times in 69 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Why would you want to display a message that asks your visitors to turn off your script?
    Are you asking me in particular or everyone?

    If you're asking me in particular then I'n not going to waste time answering questions from you when you have on each occasion in the past when I have asked you to post evidence to support the "legal advicë" you posted, you have run away.

    If you want me to take you seriously then show some courage for a change and answer my questions I first asked you and then I will return the courtesy and answer your questions. If you're not prepared to answer my questions then stop wasting my time by asking me questions

    You can't have it both ways by expecting me to answer your questions when you first run away from answering mine.
    Last edited by webdev1958; 03-05-2012 at 06:35 AM.


 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •