- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:10:58 -0500
- To: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "Vadim Plessky" <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>, <sethmr@bellatlantic.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
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