text browsers and current web standards

Fri Jun 23 05:34:13 UTC 2017

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 at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
>> 
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list at redhat.com
> 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. 