Re: [Caml-list] Ask questions on the mailing lists too

["Sébastien Hinderer" <Sebastien.Hinderer@inria.fr>]

Hello,

Sam Kuper (2022/01/19 17:51 +0000):
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 05:31:39PM +0100, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
> > Simon Cruanes (2022/01/18 15:55 +0000):
> >> By the way Sam, I opened https://discuss.ocaml.org/about in a TUI
> >> browser and it looked kind of ok.
>
> That suggests to me that Discourse relies on browser-sniffing (probably
> based on the user-agent string) to decide what to serve to the browser.
>
> So, users whose browsers (or browser-settings) don't match the Discourse
> devs' assumptions may be served non-accessible page content.
>
>
> Did you manage to create an account, via a text-mode browser, btw?

If you are asking me: I didn't even try that. I use Firefox with Orca
under Linux. I uselynx (text-mode browser) only for simple google
searches and for Wikipedia, almost all the time I end-up using Firefox.
I don't feel at ease with it because I feel too far away frmo the
information (it's hard to explain, sorry), but that's what gives the
best user experience, I think.

> > Well thei=re is no real equivalence between the ability to view a page
> > in a text-mode browser and its accessibility. NOt even an implication
> > in one direction or another.
>
> For people who use text-mode browsers for accessibility reasons, it's
> crucial that websites work in those browsers.

I am not sure such people exist nowadays. The visually impaired persons
follow, for most of them, the general tendency and use Windows or Mac
with screen-rendering solutions (NVDA and Jaws under Windows, VoiceOver
under MacOSX). Even among the minority of blind persons using Linux,
most of them work in the GUI. And for the minority of the minority who
uses the console, most of the time they do run X just to run Firefox. I
belong to this last category.

> (Likewise, for people who use screen-readers, it's crucial that websites
> work with screen-readers.  Mutatis mutandis.)

But working with screen-readers and being Java-script-free have become
two quite different things nowadays. Think about stuff like ARIA.

> > Similarly, I don't think it's expected, nowadays, that a website is
> > browsable without JS support for it to conform to WCAG.
>
> WCAG 1 explicitly required websites to be usable without scripts.

Yes but now the reference is WCAG 2.1, see

https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/

> WCAG 2 fudges the issue (due to pressure from Big Tech, IIRC), but very
> strongly implies it.
>
> The UK Government says:
>
>     Some users turn off features in their browsers deliberately. You
>     should respect their decision and make sure those users can still
>     use your service.
>
> https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/technology/using-progressive-enhancement#do-not-assume-users-turn-off-css-or-javascript

I, to, would prefer to be able to continue using lynx. I'm way more
comfortable than with Firefox. But there are so many aother batles that
I don't feel brave enough to invest energy in this one, nowadays. But I
am glad others do.

Sébastien.