251–260 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The definition of niche is literally "appeals to a small, specialized section of the population" so, er, yes.
Perhaps, but in this case Google would just have to comply with the standards, which are not niche at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DDG has been getting better. I've switched my browsers search to it and only occasionally go back to Google for something specific.
DDG's results are very bad still, and they will likely always be terrible. It's not hard to find a query that is objectively much worse than what Google has. DuckDuckGo will never be able to catch up to Google's search quality results. It doesn't have Google's data, Google relies on the search behavior of most of the people of the internet to guide its results along with its vast human and hardware resources to creat…
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 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a pizza ordering site is a good SPA example, but progressive enhancement still applies. React probably makes its design simpler. Elm would, even more so. But it’d be nice to access it with Lynx.
And I think a pizza ordering site is a good case for server-side and mostly static HTML. There's very few things on such page that change more often than every few days, and as for the dynamic stuff, all you really need to manage is a client-side basket, which is trivial in isolation. I believe you could easily cut the time spent on such site by a third if you approached it this way. Even more for people accessing th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're already visiting web pages that are directing your computer to access servers somewhat arbitrarily. You're running quite a bit of other people's code on your computer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say that about literally any anecdotal observation. I’m sure you notice trends around you and generalize. In fact, if you didn’t, you would find it hard to pretty much do anything in life. In short, your comment is myopic and unhelpful.
I don't draw broad software trends from just my own perspective though, espcially when my own perspective is directly contradicted by the op
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel like many of the text-mode browsers have failed to keep up with changing web standards Yeah, web standards such as images and video and audio. Not keeping up with those standards is kind of the point.
How about tables, or frames? Lynx doesn't even support those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you could contribute better by citing examples where Google does care about blind people instead of calling an actual blind person's argument ridiculous.
It doesn't matter if he's blind; I'm calling the connections ridiculous. Lynx isn't a browser for blind people, it's a browser for the terminal. The terminal isn't some accessibility tool either, and was never made to be one. Drawing a connection between Lynx and blindness accessibility is tenuous, saying that this change is Google is attacking Lynx is even more tenuous, and drawing some sort of transitive connection…