3 ms·
As other comments have pointed out, there is no causal relationship between the use of JS and lack of accessibility, screen reader compatibility etc. So support
by davnicwil 7y ago
As other comments have pointed out, there is no causal relationship between the use of JS and lack of accessibility, screen reader compatibility etc. So supporting no-JS and being accessible are two different concerns.
I'm absolutely all for accessibility and would never argue against making things accessible as part of some cost-based tradeoff. Frankly this shouldn't even be an issue that comes up if you 'just do things right' from the get go - but even if it does, the imperative is always on you to just fix it.
There might be a correlation where apps that happen to use JS are more likely to be written in a way which is less accessible by default, but that's another conversation.
With that out the way - totally agree with you, for certain apps with regulatory requirements insisting that JS not be required for use, that's what you do - and for good reason - max availability to anyone for public services etc - that makes complete sense.
- dillonmckay 7y agoI don’t disagree. The point I may have misunderstood is putting development effort into a SPA that only uses JS and works well with a screenreader versus the non-JS alternative that also works well with a screenreader. Of course, it depends on where in the development process the developer becomes ‘aware’ of making the site compliant. As you said, ‘do the right thing from the get go’.