W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Browser Issues

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:36:08 -0500 (EST)
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
cc: RUST Randal <RRust@COVANSYS.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0203052125310.26750-100000@smarty.smart.net>
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> First, it is worth noting that this is an issue recognised in the WCAG group,
> who are trying to determine (among the many other work items they have) what
> should be considered a minimum baseline for browsers - in terms of what
> capability users have.
> 
> Further, it is not specifically older browsers that are "non-standard" -

define "non-standard"

> But it is true that getting users to upgrade is in principle a very important
> way to get progress in accessibility. There are many difficulties involved -
> in the real world people generally do not update their systems frequently any
> more, sometimes for very good reasons.

I have uploaded and am running the latest version of PINE in e-mail, and I
think I have the latest version of LYNX for web browsing.

now is this considered "upgrade" in your book or does it have to have all
the fancy bells and whistles to be considered "updated"

> (As someone who is using a version of Mozilla that has been available for
> several months, rather than the new version with more accessibility features
> this applies to me too. And I make an effort to keep most of my tools up to
> dat - my Operating system was updated last week, and most of my browsers are
> the latest available version. There are also tools I would like to

now how many people in the real world up date anything that
frequently...how about someone running the latest (not avaliable in the
USA) MSDOS 8.1 ??
   What about someone who is running BSD, or Linux, or some other less
popular browser???
   I am playing devils advocate a bit but many people just "like" text,
why is it so hard to understand this is a valid way to use the web and
people who chose speed and robust and clearity over bells and whistles
have a right to all of the data and information on the internet.

>   While I do agree that an older browser causes accessibility issues, I feel
>   that when standards are brought into the picture that older browsers should
>   be considered non-standard and should be discouraged as much as possible.

being considered "Non standard" and being "discouraged" is very different

a basic level of usability MUST be preserved.. there are too many people
in the third world and who are low income and who cannot or chose not to
upgrade on a regular basis.

Bob


   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 attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  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 Tuesday, 5 March 2002 21:24:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT