The problem we face with text-based browsers is that they do not get
updated to support the current web standards.
As much as I love and use lynx the cat, I no longer expect people to make
their web sites accessible for use with a browser of which the support of
the standards has fallen behind so much.
IMHO, for a web browser to be seen as current, it must support at least
html4, but preferably html5.
The last update the lynx browser received was related to ssl in some way.
I am gratefull for that as before that update, some sites became
inaccessible, simply because the people running them had to update their
security settings and ssl libraries.
I believe the practical approach to be the one taken by Kirk Reiser when
it was decided to develope clifox.
For those who do not know, clifox is basicly a console-only interface to
firefox.
Clifox is not out of alfa or at the best beta, but as long as firefox
itself gets updated to support all the latest standards, clifox will
remain usable.
Just my twenty cents or so.
Regards, Willem van der Walt
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Linux for blind general discussion wrote:
May i ask when wacg 2.0 changed to reflect your point?
The success criteria requires a site to support all current and future tools.
Lynx is current as of what two weeks ago?
Links, and e-links are not actually text based, just text friendly.
If developers are excluding populations, many in countries where Internet
bondage is an issue use them as well, it is perhaps because of plug & play
blind person concepts. those perpetuated, more often than not, by those who
feel that all blind people are the same using the same tools.
Chimes, let me go back and look at where Paul is sending you.
Karen
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Linux for blind general discussion wrote:
Well, I should note that text based browsers are usually no longer
considered when trying to develop accessible websites, so your mileage will
vary greatly when using a text-based browser, even when a site can be
accessed with no trouble using Firefox, Seamonkey or Chromium. For example,
whereas you had problems accessing the links I posted earlier, I had no
trouble at all accessing them in Firefox. I would copy and paste the
information from the channel contact list I posted, but this relies on
having a link to the contact or support page for each channel listed, and
once you get there, even if I was to be able to copy and paste each link,
the contact or support page will likely be unfriendly to text only
browsers, as they don't adhere to current HTML standards. Sorry for the
trouble, it's just the way even the w3c handles things now as far as I can
tell.
After doing a rather thorough search for Roku accessibility groups or blind
Roku users, I find only a single post on a blind tech list that refers to
what would appear to be an early model Streaming Stick available at Walmart
last year. So I'll likely start an e-mail list or similar. Thoughts are
welcome, i.e. should this be specific to Roku devices for the most part, or
should it cover all accessible TV devices including the latest cable box
offerings? In answering this question, it is important to note that the
Chromecast and Android TV devices are on topic on the eyes-free Android
list, and the Apple TV is on topic on AppleVis. About the only thing I can
think of at this point that isn't covered elsewhere is the Amazon Fire TV
line, including the Fire TV Stick, the Fire TV box and the up and coming
Fire TV with Alexa, the one that's a complete TV that is said to be
released in the coming months, not the device that connects to an existing
TV. Of course there are also the LG and Samsung TV's that have
accessibility built into their high end models, and they are also not
covered anywhere as far as I know, although they have varying levels of
accessibility and different methods of accessing screen reader/audible
guide features. In any case, if a general accessible TV list is most
desirable, then a general accessible TV list it will be, although that will
quickly go all over the map, so may be harder to manage, since too many
devices with too much variation in features and methods of access could
become problematic.
The next question would be the format. Is it to be an e-mail list, a forum,
a group on a social media platform, ...? What type of moderation, if any,
do we want? Should it be a strictly on topic list or group, or should it be
very loose and relaxed? Just some starter thoughts. Feel free to answer any
questions or ask questions of your own.
~ Kyle
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
--
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
The full disclaimer details can be found at http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list