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

Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:11:37 -0800
Message-Id: <a05101003b8500868a19e@[10.0.1.3]>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>, "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>
At 6:17 PM -0500 12/26/01, David Poehlman wrote:
>to settle this, we take a passage from uaag its self.  It is not because
>of the evildry of lynx that it is not a target:

Evildry?

I've read the doc, BTW.

>As we developped the document, lynx was one of our guide posts becaue it
>has many features to point to that satisfy uaag requirements if not
>checkpoints.  I'm not deffending lynx here but would be proud if I was
>because lynx was where I began my work on the web and my interaction
>with it and to which I still return often.  I wanted to provide the fact
>from which my rather veague statement flowed.

Except that still doesn't mean it satisfies UAAG, nor does it mean it's
accessible, nor does it mean it has full features that you should expect
from a web browser.

See, it's like this.  If you're going to disagree with a point I make,
you at least should argue against that point.  My point was that Lynx is
not a good minimal browser because it doesn't do what we expect browsers
to be able to do.  The fact that it's so much NOT a browser that it
doesn't even qualify as such under UAAG is supporting evidence for my
viewpoint.

It's okay, though; I understand that some people really aren't interested
in an examination of what Lynx can do or _should_ do, and are happy to
continue telling people "if it works in Lynx, then it's accessible!"

Carry on.  I'm done with this conversation; y'all win!

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire          http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse           http://kynn.com/+d201
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 18:25:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT