- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:21:49 -0500
- To: "Martin McCormick" <martin@dc.cis.okstate.edu>, "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
the answer to your question is simple. Lynx woulde have to be rewritten from the ground up and called something else. when will we see a truely accessable browser? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> To: "Martin McCormick" <martin@dc.cis.okstate.edu>; "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: February 13, 2001 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [media] Making Sites Accessible Makes Sense For All Customers > Browsers like lynx represent a core functionality that > should be the gold standard for accessibility simply because they > are free and open-source. If or when lynx supports standard open JavaScript then it should be considered. When did "free and open-source" become a criteria for accessibility? JavaScript, and it's international standard ECMAScript, was invented to solve some real problems. Why can't lynx "get with it" and support JavaScript? This reminds me of the days when people were ranting and raving about GUIs being in-accessible. Regards, Phill
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 20:21:44 UTC