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

Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 23:55:56 +0100
Message-ID: <20011226235556.A6999@elfi.elfi.org>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 06:44:38PM -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> >   I do hope your gripe with Lynx isn't the fact that it doesn't support 100%
> >   of the "dancing clown" syndrome; I have yet to see *any* browser which
> >   fully support *every W3C standard* - including Lynx.
> I have a "gripe" with Lynx?  No, I'm merely pointing out that it's
> limited in what it supports and what it doesn't, and it shouldn't be
> considered a full web browser by the standards of 2001-2002.

  I see. Using that as a baseline, neither Lynx, MS IE, Opera, Mozilla,
  Netscape or any other browser can be considered a 'full web browser';
  since none of them support 'everything'.

  However, this little debate sprang from your comarison between Lynx
  and Netscape 2, and I believe it is quite clear that Lynx is more
  capable than said version of Netscape.

> Are you saying it _does_ do CSS, DOM, JavaScript, and the other
> things I listed?  Nothing on the pages cited indicates that.

  Nor does anything in my reply. What my reply does say is that Lynx
  have quite good support for a high number of those standards that
  by concensus has been established for use on the WWW. I might
  note that Javascript is not a technology that Lynx support, nor is
  it a standard. By your token I could claim that since Microsoft's
  IE 6 doesn't support either ECMAscript, DOM 2, or transparent PNGs
  it too is on the same level as Netscape 2.0

  I don't find that comparison to be a particular fruitful one.

  I do, however, believe quite firmly that Lynx is a better baseline to
  use towards accessibility than Netscape 2.0, especially since it is
  by far the best browser at linearizing content something which makes
  information quite abit more accessible.

  One of the 'Old Rules' of testing for accessibility is to check
  whether the *information* contained in/on a page can be extracted
  or assimiliated with alternative technologies for browsing - such
  as braille or voice browsers.
  By using Lynx, a page author can get a very good idea of how the
  end result will appear - even without investing in a Braille reader
  and learning to read it.

 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 17:55:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:16 UTC