我们是否应该考虑禁用 javascript 的用户以实现可访问性？
禁用 JavaScript 的用户（数量较少）是可访问性的主题吗？使所有内容无需 JavaScript 即可访问比使网站兼容 IE6 更耗时。
我的问题实际上是有多少人在浏览器中禁用 javascript，如果工作中的比例非常低，那么为什么我们需要使网站在没有 javascript 的情况下兼容。 WCAG 2.0 对此有何评论？
我想知道关于这个问题的其他看法。
对于 WCAG 2，“不要使用 x”不再是问题 有效期更长。 （曾经有过吗？） 现在是 由您（开发人员）来处理 直接访问您的 内容，无论您使用什么技术 选择。我相信我们即将 体验无障碍新浪潮 设计技术，结果。
Are users who disable javascript (which are low in number) a topic for accessibility? To make everything accessible without javascript is more time consuming than to make site compatible for IE6.
My question is actually how many people keeps javascript disabled in browser, and if it's very low percentage in the work then why do we need to make site compatible without javascript. What does WCAG 2.0 say about this?
I want to know other opinions on this issue.
See what is written in this article
With WCAG 2, “Don’t use x” is no
longer valid. (Was it ever?) It is now
up to you, the developer, to work on
the direct accessibility of your
content, no matter what technology you
choose. I believe we’re about to
experience a new wave of accessible
design techniques, as a result.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（5）
使用 JavaScript 并不会使屏幕阅读器无法访问网站，具体取决于它的使用方式。 Stackoverflow 是可以访问的，即使它使用 JavaScript，当我对一个问题投赞成票或反对票时，我不会收到该问题的分数已更改的通知，但如果我重新阅读该问题，我可以知道分数已更改。使用 JavaScript 时，可能会导致屏幕阅读器无法访问网站，包括在画布元素上绘图、需要单击图形的某些区域才能完成任务、创建没有文本描述的图表等。
The use of javascript does not make a site inaccessible to screen readers depending on how it's used. Stackoverflow is accessible even though it uses javascript, when I up or down vote a question I'm not notifyed that the score of the question has changed, but if I reread the question I can tell the score has changed. Things that would make a site inaccessible to screen readers while using javascript would include drawing on the canvas element, requiring certain areas of a graphic to be clicked in order to acomplish a task, creating charts with no text descriptions, etc.
恕我直言，是的。不仅仅是因为 Javascript，或者缺乏 Javascript。如果您的网站依赖于视觉技巧和操作（大量菜单、拖放、软弹出窗口），那么盲人或近盲人就无法访问它。如果它过于依赖颜色区分，则可能会导致色盲。 经验法则
：如果您希望完全可访问，请查看通过 Lynx。
希望我正确理解你的问题。
IMHO, yes. And not just because of Javascript, or lack thereof. If you site relies on visual tricks and manipulation (a lot of menus, drag-and-drop, soft pop-ups) it is not accessible to blind or nearly-blind people. If it relies too much on color differentiation, it might moss the color-blind. Etc.
Rule of thumb: If you want to be totally accessible, see how easy it is to navigate your site through Lynx.
Hopefully I understood your question correctly.
javascript 的最大问题是，如果您操作 dom，用户可能不会意识到发生了任何事情。一般来说，使用渐进增强来让每个人都满意。
不过，不要决定不使用 AJAX 之类的东西，对于少数有困难的人来说，对于更多有认知困难的人来说，您的网站会变得更难（甚至无法使用）。关键是要让它适用于每个人（包括机器人），而不是为了让它适用于另一组而破坏一组。
The biggest problem with javascript is that if you manipulate the dom the user might not be aware that anything has happened. In general use progressive enhancement to keep everyone happy.
Don't decide not to use things like AJAX though, for the small number of people who have difficulties with it you'll make your site harder (to the point of being unusable) for the much larger number of people with cognitive difficulties. The key is to make it work for everyone (including robots) not break it for one group in order to get it working for a different group.
Noscript 值得一提，因为它可以选择性地阻止 Javascript，因此可以有一些高级用户阻止脚本。 跨站脚本可能会导致更多人拥有像 Noscript 这样的附加组件，所以它不是不再像以前那样孤立。
Noscript is worth mentioning here as something that can selectively block Javascript so there can be some advanced users that block scripts. Cross-site Scripting may cause more people to have add-ons like Noscript so it isn't as isolated as it used to be.
我真的认为这个问题更多的是关于渐进增强的有效性。
如果您认为渐进增强是一件好事，那么对于可访问性来说它也是一件好事。
如果您认为某个网站的设计不正确且没有逐步增强，那么它也无法正确访问。
即使在可访问性社区中，渐进式增强“原教旨主义者”也只占少数，但他们的论点很有力，值得考虑，即使您最终会妥协。
WCAG 不要求或强制使用 javaScript，但它确实要求任何可访问性实现都是现实世界中的真实用户实际上可以使用。他们用来描述这一点的行话是“无障碍支持”。我可以想象这样的情况：需要 javaScript 做最基本的事情（例如导航网站或浏览内容）的实现不足以赢得这个标签。这将是一个问题。
我知道至少有一个以可访问性为中心的网站（出于争议原因）有时需要禁用 javaScript。该网站有有关渐进增强的视频，可能会提供丰富的信息。
需要注意的是：可访问性对象模型 (AOM) 目前正在由Google、Apple 和 Mozilla - 这是一个 javaScript API，它允许开发人员直接操作可访问性树，而无需弄乱标记属性。
仅通过 AOM 实现的辅助功能（根据定义）将无法在禁用 javaScript 的情况下使用。我预计这将改变人们对逐步增强可访问性的价值的期望。
I really think this question is more about the validity of progressive enhancement.
If you think progressive enhancement is a good thing, then it's also a good thing for accessibility.
If you think a site is not properly designed without progressive enhancement, then it's also not properly accessible.
Progressive enhancement 'fundamentalists' are in the minority, even in the accessibility community, but their arguments are strong, and worth considering, even if you end up compromising them
WCAG does not require or mandate javaScript, but it does require that any accessibility implementation is actually usable by real users in the real world. The jargon they use to describe this is "accessibly supported". I can imagine situations where an implementation requiring javaScript to do the most basic things (like navigate the site, or browse the content) is not sufficient to earn this label. This would be a problem.
I know of at least one accessibility-focused website which (for polemical reasons) sometimes requires javaScript to be disabled. The site has a video on progressive enhancement which might be informative.
And a heads-up: The Accessibility Object Model (AOM) is currently being developed by Google, Apple and Mozilla - this is is a javaScript API which will allow developers to manipulate the accessibility tree directly without messing around with markup attributes.
Accessibility features achieved via AOM alone will (by definition) not work with javaScript disabled. I expect this will change expectations about the value of progressive enhancement for accessibility.