W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: LIFT Text Transcoder

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:33:55 +0000
Message-ID: <440E1863.7020105@splintered.co.uk>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Phill Jenkins wrote:

> So, is there anything wrong for a company to offer a dynamically text 
> generated page - not in my mind. In fact, it may offers functionality to 
> users who don't have the functionality on their client.

This begs the question: who are the users that require a pure text-only 
version? Specifically: which users who don't have access to a text-only 
browser or screen reader / brailler need a text-only version?

Are they using lynx because they're in a DOS environment? In this 
scenario, their use of lynx would not be by choice, and - all other 
things being equal - the server-generated page, viewed through lynx, 
would give no additional benefit (it may even be worse).

Forgive me if I'm missing the obvious answer, but I can't come up with a 
scenario...

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 23:34:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT