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: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 02:15:37 +0100
Message-ID: <20011227021537.B7608@elfi.elfi.org>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 08:03:31PM -0500, Access Systems 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

  Ah, technology would be a different matter I think ...

  I assume - knowing the dangers of doing so - that we can all agree that
  it is the content that should be accessible [1], and not the technology
  in itself.

  I believe - again, knowing the dangers - that we also agree that for
  the foreseeable future it is HTML and XHTML which will be the main
  packaging for content at the moment it is delivered to a user-agent.

  Anything above this basic level - be it CSS, Javascript, Ecmascript
  Flash or SVG - would be best considered as content enhancement
  techniques.[2]

  With this in mind, I would suggest that a 'minimum requirement' would
  be for a user agent to know how to handle HTML [3] and know how to
  survive [4] XHTML.

  The bottom line: a 'minimum requirements' browser shouldn't break
  content.
  


 [1]
  Accessibility - in my view - is achieved when the user/visitor can
  partake of the content in such a way that he, she or it can assimilate
  it after their own capabilities.

 [2]
  "Content enhancement" - in my view - are such techniques which when
  used can make the content more attractive or even more accessible given
  that support for them exist; whilst at the same time not reducing
  accessibility when support does *not* exist. 

 [3]
  HTML - regardless of version - comes with the built-in magic that
  an unknown element should, or could, be ignored but the content of
  it retained.

 [4]
  'Survive' is my way of writing 'not blow up'. Even Netscape 4, which
  is not known for it's excellence in parsing, does this.

-- 
 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 20:15:40 GMT

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