W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Undoubtedly, an oversimplification ...

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 19:09:31 -0500
To: wai-ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFE4C308F5.F945557A-ON86257CCB.00813D59-86257CCC.0000DFDD@us.ibm.com>
Dear Lewis, 
not only oversimplification - but unrealistic.

Sure there is a refresh today, but Lynx was  initially developed in 1992. 
Today's complex web applications are like yesterday's complex desktop 
applications.  So using a Lynx browser to try to run today's web apps  is 
like trying to run today's software on a PC DOS computer - it just doesn't 
work.  Sure there are some decade old web "brochure ware" sites that will 
work fine, but they are not applications and that is my point.  This is 
NOT an disability argument.  The same person with a disability outfitted 
with a reasonably cheap computer with a free copy of NVDA and a free 
Firefox browser will have a reasonably accessible time running a web app 
that is WCAG compliant.  Even having said that, there are apps that are 
accessible, but equally unusable by everyone. . . 

Note: Unlike most web browsers, Lynx does not support JavaScript,[18] 
which some [most?] websites require to work correctly. 

If one cannot afford a reasonably cheap computer, then it is an 
affordability issue, not a justification to ask for web apps to run on 
decades old technology.

If you're running Lynx to get the so called speed of not downloading 
images, just turn images off, but you can't turn off JavaScript and expect 
the functionality of  desktop applications.

If you don't want to or have to use web application and only need access 
to old static web pages, then by all means do so, but that is not 
justification to ask to be able to run in a JavaScript-less browser for 
the rest of the web apps.  Text only is NOT the issue with Lynx - it is 
its lack of JavaScript support.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Phill


From:   L Robinson <dirk.samuel.robinson@gmail.com>
To:     wai-ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, 
Date:   05/01/2014 04:43 PM
Subject:        Undoubtedly, an oversimplification ...



Dear group,

my apologies, i have previously posted two comments on EOWG, when in fact 
i think they were relevant to the wider group:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2013OctDec/0014.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2014JanMar/0000.html


The point which i am trying to make was shared with Google, via an 
accessibility course, which i enrolled on, & failed. It sadly seems to be 
the case that people see others gaining advantage in this world with poor 
behaviour, and rush to imitate them; for instance, what seems to be a 
British fetish - my enemy's enemy is my friend. What i am trying to 
intimate, is that what i have tried to share with Google, has, probably 
not been shared with W3C, naturally.

To introduce what i wish to say i will relate two quotes which i have been 
unreliably informed are Dostoevsky's:
a) consciousness is a disease
b) the only animal which is not adapted to its environment, is man 

The point is kind of illustrated as follows: if a web site, or an 
'accessible version' of a web site, with the same 'content', were to be 
delivered, in a manner which is compatible with Lynx [1] (text only 
browser), then many of the 'complexities' of Web Accessibility would seem 
to vanish in a puff of pink smoke?

References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)

Yours faithfully,
Lewis.

— Mr Robinson —

Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 00:10:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:51 UTC