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 20:46:23 -0500 (EST)
To: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112262045180.19167-100000@smarty.smart.net>
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Tina Marie Holmboe wrote:

have to agree with you in almost every thing you say.  put very
simply.  the browser should be able to read every site regardless of how
fancy it is.

Bob

> 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.
> 
> 

   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 20:25:32 GMT

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