Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

blind.guru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 333 posts

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#211

Post by marktangotango »

globuous wrote: post #122
hombre_fatal wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DDG results are so much worse for me, especially anything longer tail or in Spanish, that I switch to Google when I'm actually getting work done. I find myself adding "!g" to an important search just to check for any results that DDG doesn't know about and it's almost always an upgrade to see Google's results. Search is hard. I don't like to chime in to say something negative about an underdog like DDG, but I see thi…

Sure, but 90% of the time, I and most people I know don't do very sophisticated searches. I'm actually mostly using google as a billion dollar search engine for wikipedia / stackoverflow / arch wiki / bbc / nyt / ft / whatever big site there is in a given domain. Because these sites happen to have 90% of what i'm looking for. For the rest, we all have our own little forums we follow: fb, hn, email etc. So instead of…

Search is ripe for disruption, and ddg is the lead candidate right now. One wonders if such a strategy could give rise to more challengers more quickly. I’ve certainly considered it myself (alexa top 10k though).

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#212

Post by gmfawcett »

Spooky23 wrote: post #208
Twirrim wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, that explains that trend, but wow. We actually managed to come up with something arguably more obtuse than an acronym (and they're hardly the most friendly of things)

Fancy web people are too cool for acronyms

What was the acronym for "accessibility" again?

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#213

Post by tropo »

CAMLORN wrote: post #185
dredmorbius wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blind user in TFA might be surprised at your assertion. Blind users typically rely on screen-readers, including tools such as emacsspeak (which relies on either Emac's built-in eww browser, w3m (of which I believe eww is based), lynx, etc. The ability to rely on console-based tools with text-to-speech capability, and receiving typed input, is fairly widespread. The requirement that interactive content be rendered…

I am blind. I know or have known at least 20 other blind people sufficiently to know what their browsers are. None of them used Links. One of them used Edbrowse. The rest (including myself) are Firefox, Chrome, or Safari. I have at least one personal project (not public) which uses React heavily. Saying that Links is necessary is an outdated view, so much so that we have things like the accessibility object model [0]…

I suppose that you are unaware of the spelling difference. You literally can't see it. I'll separate the letters for you:

They were discussing this: L Y N X

You switched to this: L I N K S

Both of those are text-based browsers. I agree that the one you were writing about would be terrible for blind users. The other one is better.

Wikipedia links for those browsers:

L Y N X is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)

L I N K S is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser)

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#214

Post by CAMLORN »

spookthesunset wrote: post #199
CAMLORN wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am blind. I know or have known at least 20 other blind people sufficiently to know what their browsers are. None of them used Links. One of them used Edbrowse. The rest (including myself) are Firefox, Chrome, or Safari. I have at least one personal project (not public) which uses React heavily. Saying that Links is necessary is an outdated view, so much so that we have things like the accessibility object model [0]…

> The idea that JS is bad for screen readers--or indeed that we use text-based browsers--is a consistent misconception that is no longer true. To be perfectly blunt, I feel this misconception is pushed mainly by people with an "anti-javascript" agenda. If one can no longer argue that "supporting non-javascript clients is the only way to support accessibility", one is only left with "if you break support for non-javas…

I see this like supporting DOS in 2019 or somesuch. There might be an esoteric reason to do so but when 99% of the userbase has left and the old thing can't support new technologies, saying that we need to support the old thing forever because a tiny subset of users still use it stops meaningful progress. If there weren't plenty of good, modern options I would be all for Links but there are, so I'm not. At some point it's on the user for choosing not to leave their little island of familiarity, especially when the user is technical enough to be using Links.

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#215

Post by guelo »

spookthesunset wrote: post #199
CAMLORN wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am blind. I know or have known at least 20 other blind people sufficiently to know what their browsers are. None of them used Links. One of them used Edbrowse. The rest (including myself) are Firefox, Chrome, or Safari. I have at least one personal project (not public) which uses React heavily. Saying that Links is necessary is an outdated view, so much so that we have things like the accessibility object model [0]…

> The idea that JS is bad for screen readers--or indeed that we use text-based browsers--is a consistent misconception that is no longer true. To be perfectly blunt, I feel this misconception is pushed mainly by people with an "anti-javascript" agenda. If one can no longer argue that "supporting non-javascript clients is the only way to support accessibility", one is only left with "if you break support for non-javas…

I admit I have an anti-javascript agenda since most JavaScript on the web is used against me, to track me, show ads, autoplay videos, popups, exploits etc. I don't trust you, I don't want you to run code on my computer.

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#216

Post by JohnFen »

CAMLORN wrote: post #214
spookthesunset wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that JS is bad for screen readers--or indeed that we use text-based browsers--is a consistent misconception that is no longer true. To be perfectly blunt, I feel this misconception is pushed mainly by people with an "anti-javascript" agenda. If one can no longer argue that "supporting non-javascript clients is the only way to support accessibility", one is only left with "if you break support for non-javas…

I see this like supporting DOS in 2019 or somesuch. There might be an esoteric reason to do so but when 99% of the userbase has left and the old thing can't support new technologies, saying that we need to support the old thing forever because a tiny subset of users still use it stops meaningful progress. If there weren't plenty of good, modern options I would be all for Links but there are, so I'm not. At some point…

> If there weren't plenty of good, modern options I would be all for Links but there are, so I'm not.

What are the good, modern alternatives to Lynx?

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#217

Post by khronix »

This is a trend I've noticed also, behemoths breaking standards without permission nor apology, crushing the canary in the coal mine (w3m/lynx, though emacs eww browser works). As a member of an IT Development team creating various web applications, we have found different approaches are needed based on client needs and workflow. We develop many complex data-based backed query/display single page web apps usually with zero js. Where not needed it is little more than a security hole begging for trouble. Where no 'live' user experience is required this is equals resource waste (xtra payload, xtra client cpu cycles if no js blocker) especially in many work environments.

As user/engineer I am annoyed when any site sends me their worthless js to execute unnecessarily, thus wasting my devices cpu cycles, battery, plus my lifejuice, and for what??? In most cases nothing I want/desire/need, therefore just to make a bigger tool of me than before, and not for the better. That being said, using web communications, live/simulated data visualizations benefit greatly from js.

Separation of concerns is what is missing, js was created to benefit and enhance user experience, the ne'er do wells have hacked it into a tool mindlessly used and often enough does screw the user over without permission nor apology...

Interestingly the creators of what became Google received their start with NSF funding. Good way to finish off giving everyone the finger Google, continue to 'do only evil'...

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#218

Post by gojomo »

gmfawcett wrote: post #210
Twirrim wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, that explains that trend, but wow. We actually managed to come up with something arguably more obtuse than an acronym (and they're hardly the most friendly of things)

I'm pretty sure that "i18n" and "l10n" are about fifteen years old -- not exactly a trend any more (at least, not a new one).

They're a bit older than that – this credible report suggests 'i18n' was in use at DEC in 1985, with appearances in public online discussions by 1989, and in books by the early 1990s:

http://www.i18nguy.com/origini18n.html

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#219

Post by dredmorbius »

repiret wrote: post #170
dredmorbius wrote: post #112

There used to be a saying in a11y circles, "Google is a blind user".[1] Now Google are manifestly anti-blind-user. Shouldn't be anything a major ADA lawsuit couldn't fix. Meantime, DDG is actually pretty damned good. For console users: https://duckduckgo.com/lite ________________________________ Notes: 1. https://www.w3.org/2006/Talks/06-08-steven-web40/

a11y = accessibility; I had to look it up so I'll save everyone else the trouble.

Thanks. I should have spelled that one out.

Re: I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx

#220

Post by dredmorbius »

jld wrote: post #157
dredmorbius wrote: post #112

There used to be a saying in a11y circles, "Google is a blind user".[1] Now Google are manifestly anti-blind-user. Shouldn't be anything a major ADA lawsuit couldn't fix. Meantime, DDG is actually pretty damned good. For console users: https://duckduckgo.com/lite ________________________________ Notes: 1. https://www.w3.org/2006/Talks/06-08-steven-web40/

Is there a way to make DDG Lite chrome's default search engine? Chrome seems to let me create non-default search engines, set the full DDG as the default, but not set lite as the default.

For desktop, I believe so. Not for Android.

I've fully ditched Chrome desktop for Firefox, however.

Other than the landing page for search itself, the distinction doesn't much matter. If you set web search as a homepage or bookmark, you can definitely do it there, however.

Post reply on HN