- From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 22:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Ka-Ping Yee <s-ping@orange.cv.tottori-u.ac.jp>
- Cc: Chris Serflek <t-chrise@microsoft.com>, MACRIDES@sci.wfeb.edu, "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Ka-Ping Yee wrote: > Chris Serflek wrote: > > > > You are correct. We do have many keyboard shortcuts, but saying "first" > > is ignoring early browsers like Lynx. > > Careful. Lynx is not "early" in the sense of "ancient"; > it is currently used in many, many places, and development > continues. Don't fool yourself. Lynx has been losing market share ever since Mosaic came out. My numbers currently put it at around one percent of the market - and still falling. This is *after* correcting for the bias of graphics on hit counts - before the correction lynx is down to one-sixth of a percent. For the record - NCSA Mosaic is doing even worse - it is down to a mere one-half of a percentage point even though it does support graphics. I suspect that outside the .edu domain it is much lower than even that (you can see a bias in the .edu domain towards NCSA servers too - com domains use Apache at nearly the 39% level while edu domains use it at a mere 12%). I would make a heavy bet that outside of the edu domains lynx is below one tenth of one percent. I'll collect some numbers to verify that. What lynx needs more than *anything* else right now is table support - because many people have ceased to even consider how a non-table browser will render something. As long as the concensus of lynx-dev is represented by <URL:http://lynx.cc.ukans.edu/lynx-dev/9601/0193.html>, lynx will remain below the minumum feature level for me to even worry about. Even _AOL_ supports tables now. Without tables - lynx *is* obsolete (which is what I think you actually meant when you said 'ancient'). -- Benjamin Franz
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 1996 01:14:06 UTC