Hacker News Reader

>There is always a willingness to support users who have visual or other accessibility requirements, yet users who want or need to disable JS are often left out in the cold.

Because accommodating disabled people is mandated by the ADA. No such requirement exists for noscript users.

View on HN

> yet users who want or need to disable JS are often left out in the cold.

Isn't that just a preference of the user, that has repercussions? In fact the WCAG 2.0 specifically says that a JS fallback is _not_ a requirement for accessibility - a common misconception is that disabled users disable JavaScript - this isn't actually true.

Fair enough if you want to turn off JS for tracking reasons or whatever, but you have to accept that some things might not work without it.

Exactly! Whilst I understand the reasons, it is nevertheless a shame that the willingness is born from requirement rather than the want of actually making things accessible for as many users as possible.

The marginal benefit from making a site available to the relative handful of people who refuse to run javascript is miniscule. The marginal cost of doing so is huge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com