- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:08:15 +0000 (GMT)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Kynn wrote: > for javascript (considered an essential feature), etc. In other I consider Javascript as unsafe technology and don't run it even on IE, except when forced to do so by bad design AND I trust the company not to have security problems. As well as the direct security risks, I tend to consider sites that don't work without Javascript as likely to be designed by people who don't understand security issues. > the meager benefits (does anyone still use lynx?), it makes sense A lot of people, not just the blind, use Lynx. I use it when searching for real information, particularly when the information is not about commercial products. Good compatibility with Lynx has a high correlation with a high information content (commercial sites tend to have a low information content, even relative to the products they are selling), and the real information is much more likely to be in PDF than HTML on commercial sites (even when using IE, I head for the PDF white papers on business software sites). Lynx gives fast load times and fast navigation times. The latter is because one can search for and access links without moving ones fingers off the home keys on the keyboard. Note that web logs underestimate Lynx use because of abuses of browsers sniffing; Lynx is quite likely to masquerade as IE or NS.
Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 13:20:52 UTC