jorgesumle wrote (edited )

En biblioteko la bibliotekisto diras al mi, ke ĝi estas en kelkaj bibliotekoj, sed mi malfacile povas legi la libron, kaŭze de la kopirajto (ne povas esti ciferecigita). Jen la ejoj:

  • Yale University Library
  • LSB Bibliotheek le Sage Ten Broek
  • New York Public Library System
  • University of Iowa Libraries (bezonas Ĝavoskripton por vidi la ejoj; mi listigas tion antaŭe).

Reply to comment by /u/emma in Web 2.0 was a mistake by /u/heckthepolice


jorgesumle wrote

JavaScript doesn't hinder accessibility, the website owner does.

You're right. But I've almost never seen an average website which uses JavaScript caring about the WAI-ARIA recommendation. Interactive elements should have the appropriate aria attributes, but most of the time they don't. With static sites, even if you don't care about the WAI-ARAI, it will be easier for disabled people to understand and they don't have to wonder if something is collapsed or not.


jorgesumle wrote

You cannot track people easily using static sites.

I think it's kind of a microcosm of our society's unhealthy relationship with technology in which we view increasing technological complexity as good in itself rather than viewing technologies as tools and selecting those that best fit our needs. We fetishize technological "progress" and thus assume that, since we can use javascript, we should even when it doesn't make any sense. And we do that with a lot of other technologies too (see: all of modern society).

Things are getting more complex and interdependent.

Personally, I surf the web with JavaScript disabled. When I code a website I write it to be compatible with LibreJS and always offer the same functionality using a <noscript> tag anyway. I almost always see a lack of care for disabled people as well; JavaScript makes things way more complicated for them, and bad web developers (most of them) don't bother to make websites accessible.