• puppinstuff@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    I can do it but it’s hard convincing clients to double their budget for customers with accessible needs they’re not equipped to support in other channels.

    That being said, my personal sites and projects all do it. And I’m thankful for accessible website laws where I’m from that make it mandatory for companies over a certain size to include accessible supports that need to work when JS is disabled.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      What country or area would that be?

      And what do you mean by “do it”? What is it exactly that you do or make without JavaScript?

      • puppinstuff@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Some provinces in Canada have rules that businesses’ websites must meet or exceed the WCAG 2.0 accessibility guidelines when they exceed a certain employee headcount, which includes screen reader support that ensures all content must be available to a browser that doesn’t have JavaScript enabled.

        • neclimdul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Also the EU and technically a lot of US sites that provide services to or for the government have similar requirements. The latter is largely unenforced though unless you’re interacting with states that also have accessibility laws.

          And honestly a ton of sites that should be covered by these requirements just don’t care or get rubber stamped as compliant. Because unless someone actually complains they don’t have a reason to care.

          I kind of thought the EU requirements that have some actual penalties would change this indifference but other than some busy accessibility groups helping people that already care, I haven’t heard a lot about enforcement that would suggest it’s actually changed.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          That’s excellent.

          And what do you make that doesn’t include JavaScript? Like what kind of software/website/content? If you don’t mind sharing, of course.

          • puppinstuff@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Mostly marketing and informational websites for the public. Businesses, tourism spots, local charities and nonprofits, etc. Nothing that’s going to change the world but hopefully makes somebody’s day a little easier when they need to look something up.

          • neclimdul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            It doesn’t have to not include JavaScript, that would be quite difficult and unreasonable. Accessible sites are not about limiting functionality but providing the same functionality.

            I haven’t gone fully down the rabbit hole on this but my understanding is even something like Nuxt if you follow best practices will deliver HTML that can be interacted with and serve individual pages.

            That said, screen readers and other support shouldn’t require running without any JavaScript. Having used them to test sites that might be the smart approach but they actually have a lot of tools for announcing dynamic website changes that are built into ARIA properties at the HTML level so very flexible. There are of course also JavaScript APIs for announcing changes.

            They just require additional effort and forethought to implement and can be buggy if you do really weird things.

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I think we’re on the same page here. Your reply seems to me to argue against the people who are completely against JavaScript and who treat its very presence like a complete site-breaking bug. I am not of their opinion either. But I do sympathize with the sentiment that it is being used for evil.