# RE: JavaScript, rails, and the W3C **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [December 1, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-javascript-rails-and-the-w3c/56154 "2005-12-01T20:17:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HOGANBP](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/779978/32.png) [@HOGANBP](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/HOGANBP)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-javascript-rails-and-the-w3c/56154/1 "2005-12-01T20:17:15Z")
Thanks for the reply. “i fear i don’t get your point. how would that help? you’d have to a) add the code for adding the onclick() event somewhere (thus not making the code any shorter) and if a client does not fully support javascript, it will not matter very much _where_ he does not understand the js… maybe i just seriously misunderstood you?” Well let’s say for example that you wanted to have hyperlinks that open popup windows. Since “target=”\_blank"" is deprecated, you’d have to do a javascript popup. But, let’s say you’ve got a blind user using a screen reader. Many screen readers just don’t understand JS, and popups can be confusing. So you might just have the link point to the page by default, and use client-side js to “apply” the popup by changing the href from ‘foo.htm’ to ‘javascript:popup(‘foo.htm’)’. The same can be true for “show/hide” elements on a page… Show them all when no javascript is enabled, and use client-side js to create the “show / hide all” link on the page as well as hide elements on the page load. I also might find that instead of using the same "onclick=“foo{params, parsms, params)”, I have a common file that I could reference. Just like prototype… Why do ‘getElementByID(‘foo’)’ when you can do $(‘foo’); 1. “how is that helpful? i’d say the most important thing is that the code you generate is understood by the application you want to support (pragmatic view of things, i know) and if i think about the fact that the most-widely-used browser - alas - still cannot fully deal with css2.0, i don’t see how standard-compliance on the web-application side can further accessibility :-)” Accessible means accessible… By anyone on any platform. Those with low vision might require screen readers… Those with old browsers still want to buy your product. Those with fine motor skill impairments have difficulties using the mouse, so you’re careful how you make things appear and disappear based on events… Etc. A great start to achieving this is to ensure that your XHTML and CSS is valid. If you’ve got “onClick” all over the place, you’re not going to have valid docs… And you’re going to skip validating because you _know_ it won’t be valid. I would say that your application (especially if you’re attempting to reach the largest audience possible) is not useful unless it can be used without css or javascript enabled. It’s not going to be a _fun_ experience, but it doesn’t have to frustrate the user who happens to be using a 320x240 smartphone to do some quick work. Finally, as a person who supports (and occasionally has to use) assistive technologies, I want to do what I can to make the Web a little more friendly and accessible. 1. content separation: “good point, but that depends on the developer, not on the standard-compliance of the framework, i’d suggest.” I agree, but if the majority of the community is using the built-in helpers, the framework is negatively contributing to standards-compliance… Just like developers who use FrontPage or some of the .Net widgets out there and thus only support Internet Explorer on Windows. I recommend the following reading for some more examples and strategies: > **[Let Them Eat Cake](https://alistapart.com/article/eatcake/)** > > A growing debate pits accessibility against usability. From our point of view, it’s like pitting peanut butter against jelly. This article helps you create a page that is both usable and acce… [http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/unobtrusivejavascript/](http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/unobtrusivejavascript/) [http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/](http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/) Thank you! I really appreciate your interest in this conversation. If I can be involved any more, please let me know. I hope I’ve helped make a few things more clear. Regards, -Brian ---
**Author:** ![HOGANBP](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/779978/32.png) [@HOGANBP](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/HOGANBP)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 11:38am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-javascript-rails-and-the-w3c/56154/2 "2005-12-02T11:38:48Z")
On Thursday 01 December 2005 20:15, Hogan, Brian P. wrote: > A great start to achieving this is to ensure that your XHTML and CSS > is valid. If you’ve got “onClick” all over the place, you’re not > going to have valid docs… And you’re going to skip validating > because you _know_ it won’t be valid. Are you suggesting, that onclick(!) attributes cause documents to be non-conforming to the XHTML 1.0 recommendation? I can assure you that this is not the case. Michael – Michael S. I am the sum total of the parts [mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) I control directly. [Michael Schürig | Sentenced to making sense](http://www.schuerig.de/michael/) --Daniel C. Dennett, Elbow Room ---
**Author:** ![HOGANBP](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/779978/32.png) [@HOGANBP](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/HOGANBP)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2005, 11:47am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-javascript-rails-and-the-w3c/56154/3 "2005-12-02T11:47:01Z")
Hi all, 2005/12/2, Michael S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > Are you suggesting, that onclick(!) attributes cause documents to be > non-conforming to the XHTML 1.0 recommendation? I can assure you that > this is not the case. ## He said “onClick”, not “onclick” 🙂 Juan G. Hurtado [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid] [[http://armonia.spiral-static.org/](http://armonia.spiral-static.org/) ] ---
**Author:** ![HOGANBP](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/779978/32.png) [@HOGANBP](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/HOGANBP)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-javascript-rails-and-the-w3c/56154/4 "2005-12-03T23:27:47Z")
Some other good sites that advocate unobtrusive javascript: [http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/](http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/) [http://www.quirksmode.org/](http://www.quirksmode.org/) Thanks graeme