aerotwistI 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.
JasonhollandNicely said... a site built well degrades and still works. It's a 'quality' thing, not a budget thing.
CaledoniamanPaul, in my experience (as an accessibility consultant), the WCAG guidelines and fear of legal action result in too much focus being place on actually meeting the guidelines rather than taking steps to identify what the main issues are for disabled users and then resolving them. Too many times, I come across sites which are 'technically' accessible (as in they fulfill particular guidelines) but are not accessible in practise. For example, take a form which is marked up correctly, labels applied to fields etc etc. If there are too many fields in the form then this form is not accessible as it is exceptionally laborious for physically impaired and/or screen reader users. Obsession with adherence to the guidelines is in many ways preventing sites from being truly accessible.
TheDJBookCurrently I'm working on WC3 validation (which my new site does so far) and cross-browser friendly (Firefox, Safari - Mac, IE6 to a point, IE7, Chrome, Safari - iPhone). Accessibility is something I want to tackle, but not during the beta stages I'm in at the moment. Good post though.