W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

feedback sought:Fw: Accessibility and Lynx browser query

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:15:31 -0400
Message-ID: <009401c0ee8a$c3875e20$2cf60141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
please either email the original sender directly or cc the sender on
this.
Thanks!
From: Kath Moonan Kath.Moonan@poptel.net
Newsgroups: alt.comp.blind-users

Dear Newsgroup!

This is a query about accessibility and Lynx browsers, I would be
extremely
grateful anyone could give us any advice or opinions on any of the
following
problems we've encountered.

I work for a co-operative ISP and web design company, www.poptel.net we
have
been developing a number of sites that either conform to Priority 1 or
3 of
the WAI.

During discussions with the RNIB in the UK, they advised us that many
visually impaired users use Lynx, so we downloaded it to test our sites
on.
As a result of this we have identified potential conflicts listed
below.

Our opinion is that we should follow the W3C standards rather than
trying to
make the page display correctly in one particular platform or browser.

However our goal is to makeour pages accessible - we'd be really
grateful of
a second opinion on these issues as we feel apprehensive about the
methods
we are using. In short is it more important that the site works in Lynx
or
it strictly follows the standards?

What is your opinion on the issues listed below, should we follow the
accessibility guidelines or design specifically to one browser or
system?

Potential Conflicts between Lynx and WAI Priority 3 standards:

Access Keys
As Lynx already has access keys, will assigning access keys to a page
cause
potential conflicts?

Titles
The title attribute of a href, for example, doesn't seem to do anything
in
Lynx? Is it required in Lynx - and which browsers is it recognised in?

Navigation
We have been developing a method of working that included using
invisible
images as anchor links within the page so that visually impaired users
can
easily bypass navigation and go straight to the content of a page.

As the user can use built in keys in Lynx to move around the page we
are
again concerned about potential conflicts.

Spacer Images
We have been following the RNIBs advice on spacer images and using * as
the
alt tag. However it appears that the page is easier to read in Lynx if
the
alt tag is left blank for spacer images, which method should we use?

HTTPS and Secure Sockets
We have been developing a online donation product which we have
endeavoured
to make accessible to Priority 1. When we came to test the site we
found
that we couldn't open it in Lynx.

I'd be really grateful for any advice or opinions people have on these
issues!

Many Thanks in advance

Kath Moonan

mailto:pattist@ozemail.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 09:15:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:55 GMT