Are w3c Standards Only for windows Sites-and-users?

Sam Hartman hartmans at
Mon Jun 16 17:44:37 UTC 2014

>>>>> "Karen" == Karen Lewellen <klewellen at> writes:

    Karen> On the contrary, at least if a site is claiming to meet w3c
    Karen> guidelines under wacg 2.0 guideline 4.1 specifically states
    Karen> that a site must support current user agents and ensure
    Karen> support for future ones, which includes screen readers...and
    Karen> browsers.  Further, guideline 2.1 or so states that all
    Karen> functions must work from the keyboard...which is part of the
    Karen> issue at the Safeway e-commerce site.  

Yeah, but I would not describe lynx/links/elynx/any of the text mode
browsers as current or future user agents.
They  do not have enough effort spent on development to be considered
credible at meeting modern web standards.
If they work, that's great for you.

I appreciate that there are a number of people here who choose to use
text-mode browsers.  That's your choice and if it works for you that's

However, graphical browsers especially when combined with graphical
screen readers have a large number of features for accessibility.  If a
website works with those graphical browsers, but not your favorite text
browser, it's not an accessibility problem.  That's especially true if
the site works with multiple different graphical browsers with
accessibility features.

If you do want to use a text mode browser with modern websites, you may
have more luck with edbrowse than with lynx/elynx/links/w3m.

Sam, who uses a graphical browser and screen reader on Linux for quite
satisfactory access to the websites I choose to use.

More information about the Blinux-list mailing list