|
|
Posted by Michael Fesser on 12/19/07 20:21
Just for fun (I know, don't feed the trolls) ...
..oO(Onideus Mad Hatter)
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:03:52 +0200, Sir Robin
>
>>Hell, even today _most_ of the webpages of big corporations who you
>>would not think to give a shit about lynx, links or older versions of
>>dillo for example ARE viewable and usable with these browsers if you,
>>for some reason, have nothing else available for browsing their pages.
>
>Actually you moron, those sites that do degrade to a fall back version
>(like my primary site) are meant for Blackberries and other hand held
>systems...Lynx doesn't ever even enter the equation.
Wrong.
>>So what would be good enough reason to shut the door from users who
>>have a browser with no suppoer for javascript or javascript disabled?
>>Anyone?
>
>...the fact that such a browser doesn't exist.
Wrong, as usual.
>I mean you can try and
>claim Lynx...but uh...Lynx isn't really a web browser by today's
>standards...it's just not.
Wrong again. Lynx is more standards-compliant than IE.
>Trying to surf the Internet with Lynx
>would be like trying to surf the Internet with a Commodore 64.
Nope, it's like surfing from the POV of a search engine.
>Simply put...there's no reason at ALL why you should have javascript
>disabled...
Wrong again. The heavy abuse of JS on many websites is reason enough to
disable or at least restrict it.
>and pretty much almost no one does (aside from a few fruit
>loops who think it's like some evul government plot to infect their
>dumbass with SARS or whatever). And if you're looking at your web
>stats and seeing numbers like 5 to 10% having it
>disabled
You can't reliably see that from any stats.
>...yeah...check the agent string you dumbfuck, THOSE ARE BOTS!
>Dum, dum, dum, dum...
Actually, providing accessible and usable websites is for people who
have something to say. So don't worry, it's not an issue for you, kiddy.
>>Oh well, when it comes to reality, I would not do this at all... I
>>would create a page that will look good on graphical and text-based
>>clients - from the most packed-up ones to those that support only what
>>is absolutely necessary to show a html-page (ie. lynx).
>
>Lynx is a DEAD browser that reached its peak more than a DECADE ago.
That's not the point. Such browsers show whether a website is usable or
just binary garbage. If it doesn't work in Lynx, the site is crap. It's
that simple.
Micha
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|