Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

we're lucky the minimum is not ie 1.0.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>; "Access Systems"
<accessys@smart.net>
Cc: "Vadim Plessky" <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>; <sethmr@bellatlantic.net>;
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities


At 10:19 AM -0500 12/26/01, David Poehlman wrote:
>unfortunately or fortunately, there are many reasons why lynx is
pivotal
>and we are lucky if it is the one chosen as minimal.

No, we're not lucky, because it doesn't provide minimal web
functionality
nor adherence to the standards, and it can give entirely the wrong idea
about what "web accessibility" means.  For example, an over-emphasis on
Lynx has contributed to the notion that web accessibility is about
removing graphics, either from the source or from the display, and has
led to people thinking of accessibility as meaning "only blind users."

Lynx furthermore does not support UAAG.

--Kynn

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire          http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse           http://kynn.com/+d201

Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 15:10:32 UTC