- From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 01:25:20 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I don't really feel comfortable with the basis for this debate, to be honest. In my view, we should attempt to set a baseline not for what a minimal *browser* should support - there have been far too many religious wars over the last 10 years - but rather what should happen when a browser *doesn't* support things. To me it is anathema that content should be wrapped in techniques which does not 'degrade gracefully' - the WWW is the first and ONLY source of information that can be made available to both 'high end' and 'low end' users. Subsequently I believe we should concentrate more on the demands for the packaging of content than on the capabilities of browsers or other user-agents. As an example, I can mention that I use Mozilla 0.9.6 daily, and with it comes the Flash 4 plugin. This would suggest, to many, the 'minimum' requirements for a 'modern' web browser - however: I have Flash turned *off*, since I use my browser to read online newspapers, many of which have huge Flash ads in the *middle of articles*. For me, then, a modern browser *without* Flash capability is the BETTER browser as it helps me achieve what I set out to do: read the article. I claim that the 'minimum requirement' of a browser is what the user needs or want it to be. It is the minimum requirement of content producers to wrap their content in such a way as to meet their audience on *their* playing field. [1] Setting minimum requirements for what browsers MUST be able to do is like setting a minimum requirement for what strength glasses you need to 'surf' the WWW, IMnsHO. [1] I would appreciate that noone now started on a rant involving such phrases as "grey background!" or "text only!" as I am not, nor have I ever been, against graphics or any other content-enhancing elements. I *am*, however, against content-prohibiting elements or use of them. -- - Tina Holmboe
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 19:25:21 UTC