3 ms·

I think you misunderstood his/her comment. The flexibility that the modern web makes available makes accessibility tools: 1. harder to implement 2. More er

I think you misunderstood his/her comment. The flexibility that the modern web makes available makes accessibility tools: 1. harder to implement 2. More error prone. Implementing accessibility software for gopher would be a breeze in comparison. I myself am quite an old grumpy fart, but I would prefer to browse most web sites as gopher sites. I stumble on way too many sites that would have been more usable to everyone had they just skipped those extra 800kb and kept their page below 30kb.

jancsika 10y ago
Let's take a trivial example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_mobile_phones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_mobile_pho... Let's say we are both on an unreliable wifi connection (perhaps on a train) and want to find the most recently-released entry in the table. Then we want to sort the data by each of the other columns of the table. I click a heading and navigate to the bottom row of the table and see 2016. Done. Then, whenever I am ready I click each of the other four headings to sort the data again. This exhausts the effort I need to expend in order to get sorted views of the same data. And no network access was required to do this (which is nice for non-trivial table sizes). With Gopher, what user actions are needed to get the same views of the data? How much effort do these user actions require? Edit: also, are those user actions discoverable? At least visually Wikipedia's table gives me two arrows and a cursor icon change to make it apparent I can click to change the view of the data. As far as accessibility, there is a "title" attribute with the value "Sort ascending" that I presume would get read by a screen-reader.