Is Lynx the 'Acid Test' for HTML?

[andrew]

Hi,

I have been working on a simple linux page:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/linux.html

when someone from a linux ng congratulated me because the formatting of
this page didn't break up using Lynx. I installed and then grew to
like Lynx (a little!!) but I noticed that it quickly revealed gaping
holes in some web pages: they become impossible to navigate using Lynx
usually because of the complexity of their layout and the poor quality
of the HTML.

So my questions would be:

1.Could checking a site with Lynx be an 'acid' test of its HTML, not
just its 'accessibility'?
2.How many people actually use it to check their pages?

I read the following page:

http://www.deaflibrary.org/accessibility.html

and found what I thought was an illuminating quote:

As with the general rules of accessibility, you should assume Lynx is
your lowest-common denominator and write your site so that it is
Lynx-accessible,

Thanks for any thoughts,

Andrew

 

[andrew]

Hi,

I have been working on a simple linux page:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/linux.html

when someone from a linux ng congratulated me because the formatting
of this page didn't break up using Lynx.

[...]

Ooops! He actually meant Links2:

http://links.twibright.com/features.php

a slightly cleverer version of Lynx. But my point remains the same

Andrew

 

[Toby A Inkster]

1.Could checking a site with Lynx be an 'acid' test of its HTML, not
just its 'accessibility'?

Certainly I've never seen a well-written web page be unusable in Lynx. But
the inverse is certainly not true -- there are pages that render fine in
Lynx but have other serious problems.

2.How many people actually use it to check their pages?

I tend to test templates and such with it, but not every single page.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Ooops! He actually meant Links2:
http://links.twibright.com/features.php
a slightly cleverer version of Lynx.

Links2 is a "slightly cleverer version of Lynx" in the same sense that
Linux is a slightly cleverer version of Windows.

Links2 is an entirely separate browser from Lynx. Overall, I prefer Links2
for everyday use, but Lynx is probably a better indicator of a page's
graceful degradability.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Hi,

I have been working on a simple linux page:

http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/linux.html

when someone from a linux ng congratulated me because the
formatting of this page didn't break up using Lynx. I installed
and then grew to like Lynx (a little!!) but I noticed that it
quickly revealed gaping holes in some web pages: they become
impossible to navigate using Lynx usually because of the
complexity of their layout and the poor quality of the HTML.

So my questions would be:

1.Could checking a site with Lynx be an 'acid' test of its HTML,
not just its 'accessibility'?

I think it's *a* test, and probably a worthwhile test.

2.How many people actually use it to check their pages?

I do.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Toby A Inkster:

Certainly I've never seen a well-written web page be unusable in
Lynx. But the inverse is certainly not true -- there are pages that
render fine in Lynx but have other serious problems.

Simple examples of the latter:
a) Pages that set font size to 9px. Lynx ignores that.
b) Pages that use dark text on dark background. Lynx ignores that.
c) Pages with annoying animated GIFs. Lynx just shows the alt texts, and
they might be adequate.