Developers, check this out for a cool tool.
[ot]
And I still don’t understand how photographs can be accessible to blind users, and how I, as a designer, can do anything other than providing good descriptions. Photographs are visual snaphots and - by their very nature - carry visual information that requires at least partial eyesight when viewed on screen.
The photographers in that group are mostly legally blind. They are not allowed to drive, for example. Some cannot see colour (a condition which also usually reduces sharpness esp in bright light), some cannot see motion (but stills are fine) and some have stuff like macular degeneration (someday, they’ll have to quit the group).
I suppose the point isn’t “blind photographers’ group” but that when we hear “blind” we often think “totally blind” which might cause us as developers to miss out on testing or thinking of legally blind, partially blind, and other related groups.
So, while I would agree one could generally assume developers have Javascript enabled somewhere (they gotta test for it, don’t they?), I think Tommy is saying the assumption, and then the not building for it, is what’s rankling. Me, I’m very happy to not have to turn on JS to send something to the W3C validator for example. [/ot]
You are entitled to your opinion. I have mine. We disagree about other things, too (like whether stealing other people’s property is acceptable).
If you expect that people with disabilities ‘cannot be interested’ in your site, you’ll probably use that as an excuse for not building it with proper accessibility. That means you effectively lock out people with disabilities, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s similar to people building sites that work only in IE and then say ‘all my visitors are using IE anyway’.
That tool is pretty old news for me, I found it when it was featured on sites like Smashing Magazine. Though I must say for a tool which is supposedly aimed at designers… where’s the checkpoints for Accessibility or Usability or any of the important things? Currently it’s a case of “does it validate and is it browser friendly”. 
I was talking about my expectations. How are expectations in ANY shape or form holding back anything?
I clearly said I did not understand why a site like this was inacceptable given the target audience. You explained it in response to gemini181.
Instead of a reason I get instantly shoved into a corner and accused of having a stance that holds back progression.
And I still don’t understand how photographs can be accessible to blind users, and how I, as a designer, can do anything other than providing good descriptions. Photographs are visual snaphots and - by their very nature - carry visual information that requires at least partial eyesight when viewed on screen. If I’m wrong, I’d love to know. I’m not resistant to learning - quite the opposite - so I’m not sure why the tone, but what do I know?
While I agree that an accesible site and a form that could work without JS is desirable and the way to go, calling someone incompetent is simply too much.
We don’t know why they did this and their goals and the type of public that they meant to target and assuming that we do is just silly. We simply don’t know.
Off Topic:
I’ll enable JS on trusted sites where I know that doing so will yield some added value. SitePoint Forums is one example, although it is still perfectly usable without JS, enabling it improves usability and performance.
Honestly, I dunno why you turn it on here : )
HAWK, how did you run into this tool?
That is precisely the kind of preconceived notion that is holding back accessibility/universal design unnecessarily.
I guess you’ve never seen the Blind Photographers’ Flickr group?
I can’t see how they’d redirect only users without JavaScript, since they can’t use a JavaScript redirect … Of course, they could have the original page explaining that they aren’t competent enough to write something that works without JavaScript, and then use a JS redirect to the ‘proper’ page.
I’ll enable JS on trusted sites where I know that doing so will yield some added value. SitePoint Forums is one example, although it is still perfectly usable without JS, enabling it improves usability and performance.
But the key word is trusted. If a site explains that it ‘requires’ JavaScript to work, what they are saying to me is that they are either incompetent, lazy or don’t care about their users. None of these things inspire confidence and trust in me, so I’d rather leave and find a more accessible alternative.
Very few things on a web site requires JavaScript. Yes, an online version of Photoshop won’t be usable without client-side scripting, but I think that’s a clear sign that it’s not an entirely good idea to have as an online application.
Used properly – i.e., as progressive enhancement – JavaScript can improve usability and performance. (And perhaps even aesthetics, although that is normally within the realm of CSS.) But the point is that it should still work without JS, even if it’s a little bit more awkward and slow.
Ah, the old ‘the majority is always right’ argument. sigh
This is a website dedicated to front-end web developers.
I don’t quite understand why a site with this particular target audience needs to be workable without JS. I find the approach for this site perfectly acceptable and not incompetent by any means.
Just like I won’t expect a pure photography site to be overly accessible to blind people.
With that said, I’m old-fashioned. I prefer my notebook and pencil to work off my handwritten checklists rather than using some funky, über modern website that serves as a dynamic checklist.
Hi AutisticCuckoo (and /or anyone else who agrees w/ you on this point)
First I disabled mine to take a look.
Question 1)
What if they “gently” directed you to another page and quickly explained (for example) “our site is really useful and several of the features need Javascript enabled”. Would you still have issues w/ that?
I surf with JS off. No dancing paperclips for me! : )
Instead of a redirect to another page, you (ideally) build a working HTML page and layer Javascript sugar on top (depending on what the page does). If the actual demo needs JS, you state that (I’m in favor of messages).
I mean, this site linked, it even has a button telling me “submit”… of course I would expect it to send my stuff to a server somewhere and bring back a page refresh with my fancy little checkboxes. GREEN CHECKS of course : )
Question 2)
Fact: Some things cannot be done without Javascript and / or some features work better, and look much nicer only with Javascript.
Do you also consider it “incompetent” to always allow ~5% of the people to make your important decisions?
Yes. : )
Because a competent developer can let everyone (or darn near everyone) have their cake and eat it too. Mmm, with chocolate frosting. I’ll be happy with any cake that has chocolate frosting.
You could take your question and apply it to that small % of people in (let’s say wheelchairs, or whatever) dictating important decisions about, say, building codes : ) If you absolutely can’t accommodate those people, well, then sometimes you can’t, but since you can most of the time, we tend to be a little disappointed in the developers who don’t even try : )
I suppose the tool is targeted to web developers who are very likely to have a JS-enabled user agent laying around somewhere anyway… but, for now, I’ll just take HAWK’s word on it as far as whether it’s cool.
Regardless of whether you agree with all the points on the list Tommy, the concept is still cool.
Hi AutisticCuckoo (and /or anyone else who agrees w/ you on this point)
First I disabled mine to take a look.
Question 1)
What if they “gently” directed you to another page and quickly explained (for example) “our site is really useful and several of the features need Javascript enabled”. Would you still have issues w/ that?
Question 2)
Fact: Some things cannot be done without Javascript and / or some features work better, and look much nicer only with Javascript.
Do you also consider it “incompetent” to always allow ~5% of the people to make your important decisions?
Nice find, thanks. 
The tool is still cool Thanks, Sarah. Very handy and useful. Don’t know if I should create a sticky with cool stuff like this that may be helpful.
Looks like you have Javascript disabled, you must enable it to use this website properly.
That’s not ‘cool’. That’s incompetent.