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

Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 20:03:31 -0500 (EST)
To: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112261959100.11749-100000@smarty.smart.net>
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Tina Marie Holmboe wrote:

well put, I am mostly in this discussion concerned with maintaining
usability to the max number of users but how far back in OS, browser,
hardware should we consider supporting.   I can still use my Dos 5.1
running COMit to access the web via Lynx and it still works, should it??
  I think so.

in my business we work a lot with "performance" based specifications, and
how you meet those performance standards is up to the vendor.  in this
case we (meaning W3C) need to decide what those performance standard
are.  how it is acomplished is up to the creativity of the coder.

Bob

> 
>   I don't really feel comfortable with the basis for this debate, to be
>   honest. In my view, we should attempt to set a baseline not for what a
>   minimal *browser* should support - there have been far too many religious
>   wars over the last 10 years - but rather what should happen when a browser
>   *doesn't* support things.
> 
>   To me it is anathema that content should be wrapped in techniques which 
>   does not 'degrade gracefully' - the WWW is the first and ONLY source of
>   information that can be made available to both 'high end' and 'low end'
>   users.
> 
>   Subsequently I believe we should concentrate more on the demands for
>   the packaging of content than on the capabilities of browsers or other
>   user-agents.
> 
>   As an example, I can mention that I use Mozilla 0.9.6 daily, and with it
>   comes the Flash 4 plugin. This would suggest, to many, the 'minimum'
>   requirements for a 'modern' web browser - however: I have Flash turned
>   *off*, since I use my browser to read online newspapers, many of which
>   have huge Flash ads in the *middle of articles*. For me, then, a modern
>   browser *without* Flash capability is the BETTER browser as it helps me
>   achieve what I set out to do: read the article.
> 
>   I claim that the 'minimum requirement' of a browser is what the user
>   needs or want it to be. It is the minimum requirement of content
>   producers to wrap their content in such a way as to meet their audience
>   on *their* playing field. [1]
> 
>   Setting minimum requirements for what browsers MUST be able to do is
>   like setting a minimum requirement for what strength glasses you need
>   to 'surf' the WWW, IMnsHO.
> 
> 
> 
>  [1]
>   I would appreciate that noone now started on a rant involving such
>   phrases as "grey background!" or "text only!" as I am not, nor have I
>   ever been, against graphics or any other content-enhancing elements.
> 
>   I *am*, however, against content-prohibiting elements or use of them.
>  
> 

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachements are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privledged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 19:42:41 GMT

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