RE: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, John Foliot wrote:

> If there were valid and compelling reasons why these users can *only* 
> use Lynx (as opposed to the fact they simply *prefer* to use Lynx) then 
> I think that the discussion would be on a different track. I have posed 
> this question twice now to the advocates for Lynx, and they have chosen 
> not to respond, perhaps because there is no valid reason they can bring 
> forth.



BANDWIDTH  as I have said repeatedly


when bandwidth is tight graphics gets so slow as to be useless.

third world countries (yes they have people with disabilites that try to 
use the web) have very limited bandwidth and in some case people have to 
pay to use "X" amount of download,. it costs more to process more bits of 
data. Lynx and other text only tools are faster and use less precious 
bandwidth.

many places have very "dirty" connections, when in the far reaches of 
Nicaragua I was only able to use Lynx nothing else could penetrate the 
noise on the connection, couldn't even talk on the phone sometimes without 
yelling, yes this is getting much better but it is still common.

speed or more commonly the lack there of, I have been in independent 
living centers with Apple II computers still using an acoustic coupler. 
not only do these PWD have lower levels of equipment and access they 
probably need it more.  (maybe send some of that "antique" hardware on the 
floor to them, that's where most of my old stuff goes)

so Yes there is still a major need for narrow bandwidth browsers usability 
as this as I keep trying to remind folks is a

_WORLD_WIDE web, not just a web for those that have but also for those 
that barely have anything to connect with.  many many of these folks are 
disabled and are being ignored by us and their own societies.

Bob

Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:01:54 UTC