W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: lynx

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:29:30 -0500
Message-ID: <3A097F6A.F520A700@w3.org>
To: dd@w3.org
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Daniel Dardailler wrote:
> I've been looking at the UAAG last call for lynx (2.8.3 but my
> comments apply to lynx in general as a tty browser).

[Snipping everything bug the conclusion]
> OK, so lynx do not get even A, because of lack of support for HTML4
> stuff and lack of DOM support.

That is correct. Of course, that doesn't mean Lynx isn't
useful, and it may even be very accessible when used in
conjunction with assistive technology. Here's our disclaimer
from section 3:

  "Note: Conformance to the requirements of this document is 
   expected to be a strong  indicator of accessibility, but it is 
   neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for ensuring the 
   accessibility of software. Some software may not conform to this 
   document but still be accessible to some users with disabilities.
   Conversely, software may conform to this document but still be
   inaccessible to some users with disabilities."

I am pretty sure that people probably agree that Lynx should
be praised as a tool that makes content accessible to many people.
However, shouldn't Lynx implement the accessibility features
of HTML like other browsers? As for the DOM requirements, the
WG has reinforced their presence in the document several occasions.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023/#Conformance

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2000 11:29:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:29 UTC