- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:44:48 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:23:46PM +0200, Jesper Tverskov wrote: > But I would like to know if it actually benefits anybody: It would seem that it benefits people that use non-Javascript browsers, yes. > 2) Why do some people want to use a no-JavaScript browser like Lynx? Why do some people like the colour blue when we have so many more modern colours like beige, and black ? Lynx is a very, very, VERY nice browser in my view. I like it - I use it all the time. It's my preference. If you can't afford the ££ needed for Jaws and Windows, then perhaps Lynx and Festival is an alternative; if not a perfect one. Or even Emacspeak. No Javascript - why should there be ? The *reasons* for why a person makes his or her choices can be many - but very, very often none of our business. To quote RFC 1958: "Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving." A person choose the tool he or she finds most suitable or personally preferable. Lynx supports HTML *very well*. That is all that should concern us. > 3) Why do we not have a similar guideline about scripts in Section 508? The ways of Section 508 ... I too would be interesting in learning why, as it is a natural guideline to have. -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 08:44:57 UTC