I use both Lynx under Debian and IE under Windows on a regular basis. My concern is not to have a site to work with a specific browser but to have sites written according to standards instead of being written to work specifically with IE or Netscape. Often, it is the case that a site developer uses a tool to develop a site to work with one browser and that is were incompatibility issues come up with Lynx/Links and any other non-mainstream browser. Matt At 03:22 PM 7/14/2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote: >Hi John and Janina, > >Perhaps, with respect to the Links browser, I am operating on somewhat of >a lack of knowledge then, because I last used Lynx 2 or 3 years ago, and >was not aware of significant further development. With respect to Links >(l i n k s) I am totally out of my league. So, until I have gained a bit >more knowledge of these browsers again, I shall refrane. > >However, to some extent, my argument remains. Windows is mainstream, >while Linux is not. It is therefore logical, like it or not, that most >web site designers will design to whatever technology most people use, to >get the most bang for their limited bucks. Unfortunately, this may not >include text based browsers such as those that run under a console on a >UNIX platform. I desire greater accessible at every turn, and don't want >to advocate for anything that might unduely restrict this possibility. My >approach is, therefore, to promote accessibility for mainstream >technology; if it also works under Linux and other less used platforms, >then all the better! > >Though I am a Linux user and big proponent of Linux, especially on server >platforms, I am also a realist. It seems that, despite all the widespread >security holes and software bugs, there is absolutely no sign that >Microsoft Windows is losing any ground in the computer industry. Please >understand that I am not slamming Linux at all; I see Linux as eventually >becoming the number two most commonly used operating system on the >desktop, behind Windows, and surpassing MacOS. > > >At 01:27 PM 7/14/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >>Janina, >>I agree completely. As an aside, one reason why I switched from Windows >>to Linux is that Windows has all those scripting languages turned on by >>default. This makes it like flypaper for viruses. unfortunately, unlike >>flypaper, it doesn't kill the bugs. >>I am gettying much better accessibility to the vast majority of Web >>pages with Lynx and BRLTTY than I ever got with IE and Jaws. >>As an example of an inaccessible site that is purportedly for people >>with disabilities, take a look at www.sprintonlinerelay.com. It contains >>no explanation of what it is and how to use it on the home page. The >>help link depends on javascript. And a user on another list said that >>while he could see what he was typing on his Braille display, he could >>not see what the reply was. This site needs Work@ >>I dislike flashy effects on personal grounds. Generally I avoid sites >>that want me to download something. That's a security hole also. >>John >>On Sun, 14 >>Jul 2002, Janina Sajka wrote: >> >> > Darrell, >> > >> > This is the second time in two days you've called lynx (with a 'y') >> > obsolete. And, I want to dcall you on that assertion. >> > >> > Can you please explain what's obsolete about a browser still actively >> > being developed? One that loads faster than IE, supports greater >> > encryption levels than anything on Windows including Opera? etc. >> > Do you assert it's obsolete because it doesn't support javascript? Well, >> > neither does the W3C? Are they obsolete as well, then, by this logic? >> > >> > I know a number of folks, fully able bodied, who routinely turn off >> > javascript support in their javascript capable browsers because they're >> > loathe to let any site execute code on their local systems? In fact, >> > javascript is arguably a security hole along with all other scripting >> > languages that require local code execution on the client side. >> > >> > You've written in support of flashy effects. I have nothing against good >> > visuals, but I have much against non consensus web practices that require >> > particular technology and turn up the nose against other perfectly capable >> > html user agents that do conform to consensus web standards. >> > >> > May I further note that 508 is not a consensus standard, but one imposed >> > by a Federal agency, though certainly after input from affected >> > communities. But it is not a consensus standard, but one of the Federal >> > Access Board which has no technically noted members, and only one on staff >> > with any real technical chops. >> > >> > I have no idea when last you used lynx, but I suspect you're opinion about >> > it is the obsolete thing here. In my own use of lynx and IE I am quite >> > surprised how often pages that don't work with lynx also don't work with >> > IE or Netscape on Windows. Obviously, this isn't always the case, but it >> > is the case very very often. >> > >> > This is my direct and recent experience. What have you compared recently? >> > >> > >> > On Sun, >> > 14 Jul 2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote: >> > >> > > Hi John, >> > > >> > > Yes, indeed, while I am definitely a Linux fan, I believe different >> kinds >> > > of technology have their own places. Linux is excellent for fast, >> reliable >> > > server computers, and for computer users who just can't afford expensive >> > > operating systems and applications, as well as even more expensive >> screen >> > > readers. Nevertheless, we also can't expect all site designers not >> to use >> > > any "flashy" effects. Making such requirements part of any request for >> > > greater accessibility is only going to hurt our cause. I just want >> decent >> > > access, I don't support making specific requirements that a >> particular site >> > > work with an obsolete browser such as Lynx. >> > > >> > > I am absolutely hopeful, and keeping my fingers crossed with respect to >> > > Gnome, Gnupernicus, and other projects for access to the GUI under >> > > Linux. If these solutions provide good access to a web browser like >> > > Netscape, then all concerns about compatibility with Lynx for Linux >> users >> > > should be somewhat nullified, because blind Linux users would then >> have the >> > > ability to use a modern web browser. >> > > >> > > Just my $0.02! >> > > >> > > At 09:50 AM 7/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: >> > > >> > > >Darrell, >> > > >I use Lynx all the time, and on the majority of Web sites it gives far >> > > >better results than IE and Jaws ever did. Of course, BRLTTY has much >> > > >better Braille output than Jaws. In any case, I'm not going back to >> > > >Windows because some sites insist on using flashy effects. >> > > >Oet's hope that Gnome 2 really has good accessibility features and that >> > > >the Gnopernicus screen reader really has good Braille output. >> > > >John >> > > >On Sat, 13 >> > > >Jul 2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi Cheryl, >> > > > > >> > > > > I'll check this one out shortly, but I do not believe good web site >> > > > > accessibility absolutely requires that the site work with >> Lynx. The Lynx >> > > > > browser is quite obsolete in comparison to current >> technology... If the >> > > > > site uses Java Script, and Lynx can't do Java Script, then >> that's not >> > > > > necessarily an accessibility issue if a Java Script capable >> browser with a >> > > > > screen reader can successfully render an accessible result. >> > > > > >> > > > > We must be careful here; what constitutes accessibility? >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks. >> > > > > >> > > > > At 07:18 PM 7/12/2002 -0500, you wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >Hi everybody. >> > > > > >ray morgan, the 508 coordinator for the US postal Service, has been >> > > > > >corresponding with me re: the inaccessibility of the www.usps.com >> > > > site. I had >> > > > > >pointed out to him that when using lynx one gets a message >> about enabling >> > > > > >javascript, and when using links-2.0 and above it is impossible to >> > > > check out >> > > > > >once you have placed something in your cart. He has been diligently >> > > > keeping me >> > > > > >posted regarding progress on the site. >> > > > > >Today he wrote and said that i should be able to purchase and >> check out >> > > > > >now, but >> > > > > >he also indicated that javascript support is still needed. He also >> > > > indicated >> > > > > >that testers found the site works with jaws, though he said >> some more >> > > > work >> > > > > >needs >> > > > > >to be done. >> > > > > >I worte him back and thanked him for all his effort and >> diligence in >> > > > informing >> > > > > >me, but also reminded him that usability with jaws and >> accessibility >> > > > are not >> > > > > >necessarily the same thing. I pointed out that not everybody >> wants to >> > > > use Jaws >> > > > > >and that not everybody who even wants to do so can afford it. I >> told >> > > > him I >> > > > > >would >> > > > > >let him know what happened when I tried to use the site again. >> > > > > >Unfortunately, when I went to the site and again tried to buy >> stamps, >> > > > nothing >> > > > > >had changed for me. with links-2.1pre2 I was unable to go through >> > > > checkout and >> > > > > >with lynx I of course got the same old messages about enabling >> javascript. >> > > > > >I wrote to ray and told him that i would post on this list and >> see if >> > > > somebdy >> > > > > >with more technical knowledge than I possess would like to try >> to help >> > > > track >> > > > > >down the problem. If anybody is interested in trying to help >> with this, >> > > > > >Ray Morgan's email address is >> > > > > >RMORGAN1@email.usps.gov >> > > > > > >> > > > > >I think he really genuinely is trying to work on this problem. >> > > > > >Thanks. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >Cheryl >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > > > > >> > > > > >Blinux-list@redhat.com >> > > > > >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >--- >> > > > > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >> > > > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> > > > > >Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002 >> > > > > >> > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > Darrell Shandrow >> > > > > Access technology consulting / network and UNIX systems >> > > > administration. >> > > > > CompTIA A+ Certified Service Technician! >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >-- >> > > >Computers to Help People, Inc. >> > > >http://www.chpi.org >> > > >825 East Johnson; Madison, WI 53703 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > > >> > > >Blinux-list@redhat.com >> > > >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >--- >> > > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >> > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> > > >Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 7/10/2002 >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Darrell Shandrow >> > > Access technology consulting / network and UNIX systems >> administration. >> > > CompTIA A+ Certified Service Technician! >> > > >> > >> > >> >>-- >>Computers to Help People, Inc. >>http://www.chpi.org >>825 East Johnson; Madison, WI 53703 >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>Blinux-list@redhat.com >>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list >> >> >>--- >>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 7/10/2002 > >Best regards, >Darrell Shandrow >Access technology consulting / network and UNIX systems >administration. >CompTIA A+ Certified Service Technician! > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 7/10/2002