I don't normally weigh in on stuff like this, but I have to say I disagree with this stance. I would agree that if you are building an HTML site you are best to use JavaScript to progressively enhance a server-side process. But that also fails to acknowledge that there are things that server-side processes and standard HTML simply cannot deliver.
Two examples would be Google Maps and Flash sites. One could make an argument that these are not valid, and that because they aren't accessible - since they rely on proprietary technologies and not the most common denominator - that they shouldn't even exist. I think this fundamentally rails against the notion of the choice of expression that the web provides. Surely, yes, encourage people to not use a proprietary technology when the same can be achieved with accessible methods. But to say that all sites, no matter their use, audience or content should be delivered with server-side processes and HTML only (with bolt-on enhancement) is, I believe, flawed thinking.
I would add a caveat here that if a site has been funded by public money for, say, a government site, I believe it has a duty to be delivered for the people who paid for it, which will actually mean building specifically for maximum accessibility. But to try and apply that stance, legally or technically, to all sites on the web has the potential to stifle creativity and freedom of expression.
I don't normally weigh in on stuff like this, but I have to say I disagree with this stance. I would agree that if you are building an HTML site you are best to use JavaScript to progressively enhance a server-side process. But that also fails to acknowledge that there are things that server-side processes and standard HTML simply cannot deliver.
Two examples would be Google Maps and Flash sites. One could make an argument that these are not valid, and that because they aren't accessible - since they rely on proprietary technologies and not the most common denominator - that they shouldn't even exist. I think this fundamentally rails against the notion of the choice of expression that the web provides. Surely, yes, encourage people to not use a proprietary technology when the same can be achieved with accessible methods. But to say that all sites, no matter their use, audience or content should be delivered with server-side processes and HTML only (with bolt-on enhancement) is, I believe, flawed thinking.
I would add a caveat here that if a site has been funded by public money for, say, a government site, I believe it has a duty to be delivered for the people who paid for it, which will actually mean building specifically for maximum accessibility. But to try and apply that stance, legally or technically, to all sites on the web has the potential to stifle creativity and freedom of expression.
aerotwist about 3 years ago
Nicely said... a site built well degrades and still works. It's a 'quality' thing, not a budget thing.
Jasonholland about 3 years ago