W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:25:34 -0800
To: <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: "'ANDERSEN, Leon'" <Leon.Andersen@fahcsia.gov.au>, "'Adam Cooper'" <cooperad@bigpond.com>, "'W3C WAI ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <027b01cddd3c$50e7b0b0$f2b71210$@ca>
accessys@smart.net wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, John Foliot wrote:
> 
> > If there were valid and compelling reasons why these users can *only*
> > use Lynx (as opposed to the fact they simply *prefer* to use Lynx)
> then
> > I think that the discussion would be on a different track. I have
> posed
> > this question twice now to the advocates for Lynx, and they have
> chosen
> > not to respond, perhaps because there is no valid reason they can
> bring
> > forth.
> 
> 
> 
> BANDWIDTH  as I have said repeatedly
> 
> when bandwidth is tight graphics gets so slow as to be useless.

Firefox (Windows, Mac, Linux): Tools >> Options >> Content. From here you
can choose to automatically load images or not. While the default is
selected as "yes", with a simple checkbox you can stop images from loading
unless you request them. That solves the "...graphics gets so slow..."
problem. There is also an option on that same tab to disable JavaScript for
those times when you prefer not to have it activated, but for sites that
require it you can then turn it back "on". Using a fully JS-compliant
browser as a text-only browser is trivial to accomplish, you don't *NEED*
Lynx for that task, you simply *Prefer* Lynx for that.

Bandwidth problem addressed. Next?

JF
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:26:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:26:17 GMT