Re: Accessibility

William F. Hammond (hammond@csc.albany.edu)
Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:16:29 -0400 (EDT)


From: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199607022016.QAA27678@phoebe.math.albany.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Accessibility

I believe that the accessibility thread was begun by Raman.

I would imagine that audio-based HTML rendering would best be done by
calling an audio-based renderer to look at the output of a
fault-tolerant HTML parser.

Of course, if an entrance URL leads to

     <head><title>Cool Site</title></head>
     <body>
     <p><a href="/exec/index.map">
     <img ismap src="/index.gif" alt="Use Graphical Browser">
     </a></p>
     </body>

then audio renderers and cataloging robots are out of luck.  If the
provider does not care about that, fine.

However, the provider who is resourceful will find a way to have both
pictures and real anchors on the same robust page.  Less resourceful
providers attempt to size-up the caller and render accordingly.

Providers who do not want to validate their pages might at least
consider checking them in "lynx" as well as in a graphical browser.

Lynx is reasonably up-to-date, and there was progress with tables
between v 2.4 and v 2.5.

Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com> writes:

> To: Ka-Ping Yee <s-ping@orange.cv.tottori-u.ac.jp>
> Cc: Chris Serflek <t-chrise@microsoft.com>, MACRIDES@sci.wfeb.edu,
>         "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
> 
> . . .
> Don't fool yourself. Lynx has been losing market share ever since Mosaic
> came out. My numbers currently put it at around one percent of the market
> - and still falling.
> . . .

Experimental design is a complicated subject.

I'd bet there are individuals working for NetScape who still have
occasion to use "lynx".

                                   -- Bill