Do web creation tools even have configuration that can be enabled so when web sites get produced they have a certain level of accessibility already built in automatically? I know Adobe hadn't done any of this by 2013 and probably still didn't do it for creation of flash and pdf and whatever other file formats they come up with these days.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Karen Lewellen wrote:

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:20:49
From: Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net>
To: Jude DaShiell <jdash...@panix.com>
Cc: David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk>, lynx-dev@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] Website shows blank page in Lynx browser

Tim who?
Additionally, requirements that java script still work from the keyboard remain a part of w3c rules.There are editions of Lynx that can submit from script links. I realize that can differ from Java scripting but still.
One  w3c resource I like is webaim.org
who details all the issues with Javascript especially void zero links.
Seriously though I wonder how many sites are simply a product of someone taking a tool adding stuff and stirring?
In that case  better web creation tools would help as well.
Kare



On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Jude DaShiell wrote:

 What's really unfortunate about all of this is that javascript can do
 useful tasks on websites in the house cleaning department and had it been
 restricted to that kind of work and not blocking accessibility for all
 browsers it would not have attracted the well earned controversy and
 lightning it has attracted.  The producers of websites are responsible for
 misusing javascript.  I don't know what Tim Burnersley's position on html5
 is but it's been around for long enough for him to have developed one.

 On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, David Woolley wrote:

  Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:44:34
  From: David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk>
  To: lynx-dev@nongnu.org
  Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] Website shows blank page in Lynx browser

  On 12/04/18 02:27, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> What would be really neat if it happened is if Tim Burnersley went > and did > a class action suit on all javascript using websites requiring > specific > performance where those sites had to remove permanently all html > since
>    they had made his html inaccessible by using their

  Unfortunately The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Content
  Accessibility Group, now considers reliance on ECMAScript as acceptable,
  and has done so, for probably half a decade.  In my view that is because
  it is made up of accessibility consultants and graphical browser
  developers.

  Also note that HTML5 is the product of a coup, by an industry consortium
  and is not controlled by W3C.  W3C wanted a semantically strong
  language,
  document mark-up language.  WHATWG wanted a language for running
  graphical
  applications on browsers, that was defined in such a way that even
  garbage
  produced consistent graphical results across browsers.

  I don't think that Lynx is anywhere close to HTML5 compliance, because
  it
  doesn't parse it in a way that would allow it to use the mandated error
  recovery.

  _______________________________________________
  Lynx-dev mailing list
  Lynx-dev@nongnu.org
  https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev


--

 _______________________________________________
 Lynx-dev mailing list
 Lynx-dev@nongnu.org
 https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev




--


_______________________________________________
Lynx-dev mailing list
Lynx-dev@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev

Reply via email to