ARIA is just ignored by lynx, right? And I *still* maintain we shouldn't be using any of the new HTML features in published specifications. But I am old school. I will read your document. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi shane > > JS disabled is a reasonable case for providing a no JS copy, but is not an > accessibility requirement, nor is the use of lynx. > > If we wanted to support accessibility lynx, we wouldn't be using ARIA or > many of the new HTML features. > > further thoughts on lynx > http://blog.paciellogroup.com/2014/02/doesnt-work-lynx/ > > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> > > > On 14 July 2014 17:09, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote: > >> Well, first, any UA may have JS disabled. But second, text users who >> rely on things like lynx as their UA will not be able to properly access >> the specifications without a static version. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Steve Faulkner < >> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 14 July 2014 16:58, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Actually we have an A11Y requirement for this. >>> >>> >>> I am surprised that this is an accessibility requirement. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> SteveF >>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> >>> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 16:17:37 UTC