Comment by exergy
6 years ago
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.
6 years ago
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 between all of them to say that the change made is somehow against accessibility because it doesn't work on lynx is doubling so, bordering on...
It should also be noted that it seems that this is a bug with Lynx, not Google.
There's this is you care to read it: https://www.google.com/accessibility/
But that's not the point.
Please, learn a bit about edbrowse, made by a blind developer, and think again.
https://edbrowse.org/
Perhaps we could contribute ourselves instead of asking if others can.
Google seems to be heavy users of https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/A... which offers a lot more power and flexibility towards accessibility compared to plain text by enabling accessibility to full featured web interfaces instead of basic versions.
See other methods https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/accessi...
How about the built-in screen reader in ChromeOS?