On Wednesday 30 Mar 2011 14:43:55 Ian Clarke wrote: > Its sad to hear that for all their advancements, modern web browsers are > failing to meet the > needs of the blind. I'm curious if Kirk's experience is widespread among > blind web users though. > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad at > amphibian.dyndns.org > > wrote: > > > I'm curious as to why you use text browsers rather than a real browser > >> with a screen reader? Our beloved leader wants us to exclude support for > >> all > >> non-javascript browsers; > > > > > As usual you've misrepresented my opinion. I don't know why you keep doing > that when I've already asked you not to. > > I have absolutely no problem with maintaining a non-Javascript interface to > Freenet in addition to a UI that uses Javascript to deliver a contemporary > web application user experience. > > Look at what people are doing these days with web apps: > > https://chrome.google.com/webstore
I don't have Chrome. > > You'll note that they all rely heavily on Javascript, like it or not, that > is the way the web has evolved. Much as you might have preferred to stick > with what people were using in 1998, if we expect people to use our software > we need a contemporary user interface, and right now we don't have one. > Then what is the point of fproxy if all the sites on fproxy are strictly non-javascript, and non-Javascript sites are boring? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110330/a9293b27/attachment.pgp>
