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

[Sam Kuper <sampablokuper@posteo.net>]

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?



> 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.

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


> 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.

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


Sam

-- 
A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?

()  ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
/\  file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.