3 ms·

The accessible and compatible Web is alive and well in my little corner of it, where I strive to accommodate each and every user the same way as a five-star hot

The accessible and compatible Web is alive and well in my little corner of it, where I strive to accommodate each and every user the same way as a five-star hotel would to a top client, and a building architect would for a wheelchair user. I think that this is the only way, and everything else is, to be perfectly honest, just sloppy and lazy. But I tend to visit those parts of the Web less and less as they close themselves off to me.

sbergot 3y ago
js and accessibility are not exclusives.
- forgotmypw17 3y ago
  What you are saying is akin to saying, "stairs and accessibility are not exclusives". No, they certainly are not. But there are some people who go to buildings every day who need an alternative to stairs. People in wheelchairs, with walkers, with strollers, transporting something heavy on wheels, and other scenarios I can't even think of right now, all rely on ramps to access areas that others access through stairs, and may find stairs to be more accessible. They are often a relatively small percentage of the population, but they exist, and as a society, we have decided that they deserve access to our buildings. Similarly, there are visitors to my websites who require an alternative accommodation to JavaScript, such as people with slower devices which don't perform well with JS enabled, people who are concerned about security and privacy, people who are using a text-mode browser, people who are using something like wget to archive the site for later reading, and so on. There are, just like with the ramps, scenarios I can't even think of right now, but that are accommodated by allowing no-JS access. And I'm going to continue choosing to accommodate them, bending over backwards to do everything I can to ensure that each and every visitor is treated like they are visiting a five-star hotel, not a prison. Of course, this philosophy is not for everyone, obviously not for the Gmail team, and perhaps not for you either, but it works for me and my conscience.

sbergot 3y ago

js and accessibility are not exclusives.

forgotmypw17 3y ago
What you are saying is akin to saying, "stairs and accessibility are not exclusives". No, they certainly are not. But there are some people who go to buildings every day who need an alternative to stairs. People in wheelchairs, with walkers, with strollers, transporting something heavy on wheels, and other scenarios I can't even think of right now, all rely on ramps to access areas that others access through stairs, and may find stairs to be more accessible. They are often a relatively small percentage of the population, but they exist, and as a society, we have decided that they deserve access to our buildings. Similarly, there are visitors to my websites who require an alternative accommodation to JavaScript, such as people with slower devices which don't perform well with JS enabled, people who are concerned about security and privacy, people who are using a text-mode browser, people who are using something like wget to archive the site for later reading, and so on. There are, just like with the ramps, scenarios I can't even think of right now, but that are accommodated by allowing no-JS access. And I'm going to continue choosing to accommodate them, bending over backwards to do everything I can to ensure that each and every visitor is treated like they are visiting a five-star hotel, not a prison. Of course, this philosophy is not for everyone, obviously not for the Gmail team, and perhaps not for you either, but it works for me and my conscience.