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

61–70 of 333 posts

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

#61

Post by SilasX »

alexis_fr wrote: post #50
SilasX wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Following standards has great side-effects all around. The same things that break sites for the blind also break it for UX-enhancement extensions like Tridactyl, which lets you click elements from the keyboard, so long as sites don't go out of the way to make clickable buttons undiscoverable. (Extreme apologies for any implied equivalence between myself and the blind.)

Blind enablement also allows easier webscraping , which is what I think Google is more worried about. It has solutions, like Google voicing out the contents, instead of doing a webpage that is so scrappable that screenreaders can parse it.

What about bot-throttling heuristics and captchas for suspected ones?

They seem to have captchas down to an art in every other context...

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

#62

Post by fanf2 »

exikyut wrote: post #9

Curious, I installed lynx just to check this out. I find that I physically cannot navigate to the links in the page except the first few at the top. But. On the pages I get, the ... structure is still 100% intact. It's buried in a table and div soup, but it's there. So, I argue Lynx parsing bug! The author of this article would have done well to save and diff the working/not-working HTML they received. :(

I think it is because in html4 the content of an element is restricted to inline elements, whereas in html5 is transparent so its content can be block elements if its parent allows them.

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

#63

Post by hvdijk »

exikyut wrote: post #9

Curious, I installed lynx just to check this out. I find that I physically cannot navigate to the links in the page except the first few at the top. But. On the pages I get, the ... structure is still 100% intact. It's buried in a table and div soup, but it's there. So, I argue Lynx parsing bug! The author of this article would have done well to save and diff the working/not-working HTML they received. :(

Not really a bug more than an outdated browser not being updated for HTML 5.

In HTML 4, ... is an error and Lynx deals with this by implicitly closing the , turning it into a hidden link (which can still be followed by pressing 'l').

In HTML 5, ... is valid.

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

#64

Post by castlecrasher2 »

blauditore wrote: post #38
TeMPOraL wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be the first (EDIT: third) of six. > If all that stuff works for everyone, why did we invent new stuff? Just because? Or perhaps it wasn't really as amazing as well all remember. To better track people and push ads. It's really mostly just it. Modern web has very little to do with providing value to the end-user; any utility that's provided is mostly a side effect, and/or a vector to lure people into situations…

Come on, you can't be serious about this. Creating sophisticated web pages is massively easier than 10 or 20 years ago. Yes, HTML of plain simple text-only pages is still pretty much the same, but most users actually prefer visually fancier content with pictures and colors. Yes, companies presenting themselvses online profit of more capabilities. And yes, presenting ads is probably easier too. But if you think those…

>most users actually prefer visually fancier content with pictures and colors

Are you sure this is the case? Because I think it may be a shiny object trap, where on first view a visually fancy site is great and appealing but in the long run a simple, fast-loading site is preferable.

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

#65

Post by juped »

dessant wrote: post #11

The redesigned version of Google Search that is being A/B tested no longer shows links. Despite being a developer, I'm anxious to click search results, especially because when results are filtered to be from the last day or week, they are full of phishing sites and pages with scraped content that immediately redirect to malware. This change can't possibly be beneficial to users. It makes people even more ignorant abo…

Surely these are just all ads? If not, that's a shame.

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

#66

Post by asveikau »

1996 wrote: post #15
jrockway wrote: post #7

I feel like many of the text-mode browsers have failed to keep up with changing web standards. We were all mad when IE was holding back the Internet, and I'm not sure we should give lynx and w3m a pass because they're geek tools. (Accessibility is an important concern, but web browsers running under a GUI system support screen readers.) https://www.brow.sh/ is a console-based browser that claims to support modern sta…

w3m gets a pass because javascript is bad. The FSF is right about that. wasm will be even worse. Not technically worse, but for removing another layer of control. DNS over HTTPS is just as bad in that sense. If you can make something without JS you should. cryptomarketplot.com has an accessible mode FOR CRYPTO!! If crypto sites can, everybody can.

It's funny because "javascript is bad" was common geek sentiment at the turn of the century. Now it is flamebait, or being caught up in the past [itself possibly a bit of a code for ageism]. Seeing this attitude change is one of the most interesting things I've seen in tech nerd circles in the last decade or so.

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

#67

Post by TeMPOraL »

alexis_fr wrote: post #50
SilasX wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Following standards has great side-effects all around. The same things that break sites for the blind also break it for UX-enhancement extensions like Tridactyl, which lets you click elements from the keyboard, so long as sites don't go out of the way to make clickable buttons undiscoverable. (Extreme apologies for any implied equivalence between myself and the blind.)

Blind enablement also allows easier webscraping , which is what I think Google is more worried about. It has solutions, like Google voicing out the contents, instead of doing a webpage that is so scrappable that screenreaders can parse it.

Webscrapping isn't bad per se. It's being made to look bad by parties that want to eat their cake and have it too. If you show something to a person, that person should also be able to use custom automation to view it. If you show something publicly, the public should be able to use custom automation just as well. Don't want someone scraping off your site and using it for profit? Limit the audience and sue people making profit off your data for copyright infringement.

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

#68

Post by joshuamorton »

normalnorm wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standards just describe what to do to make a standards compliant HTML page, what tags are allowed etc. There are no standards that say that e.g. your page can't be all dependent on JS. In other words, Google could be 100% standards compliant, and not work in Lynx.

The grammar of the English language does not forbid one to write in Greek, but if you choose to write in Greek only, you will compromise on a lot of people being able to understand you. The same with standards, and you are misunderstanding on purpose. If Google chooses to not support simple HTML, then they are choosing to not support countless accessibility tools, and they know it. Some blind people will have a more…

Is lynx up to spec on HTML5 ARIA attributes? My understanding is that that's how accessibility is "supposed" to be done now, but if lynx hasn't been updated in a while, it might not support those HTML5 features, and thus not be standards compliant.

(edit: Someone below notes that lynx appears to incorrectly parse valid HTML5 on the google homepage, so it sounds like Lynx's lack of updates are hurting here).

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

#70

Post by coldtea »

normalnorm wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standards just describe what to do to make a standards compliant HTML page, what tags are allowed etc. There are no standards that say that e.g. your page can't be all dependent on JS. In other words, Google could be 100% standards compliant, and not work in Lynx.

The grammar of the English language does not forbid one to write in Greek, but if you choose to write in Greek only, you will compromise on a lot of people being able to understand you. The same with standards, and you are misunderstanding on purpose. If Google chooses to not support simple HTML, then they are choosing to not support countless accessibility tools, and they know it. Some blind people will have a more…

>The same with standards, and you are misunderstanding on purpose.

While I get what you mean, the use of the term "standards" just conflates an orthogonal issue.

You can be 100% standards compliant and not readable on Lynx, or 100% standards compliant and readable on Lynx.

Relying on JS is not some niche obscure corner or some bypass of the standards as per the English/Greek analogy. It's basically the norm for most SPAs today.

The problem is that the standards are not compliant with Lynx (or rather that Lynx is not compliant with the standards).

What you want is not Google to use the standards, but to use the part of the standard that is about simple, not JS dependent, HTML.

Post reply on HN