Barnes and Noble snubs Lynx users

[Robert J Tiess]

Original message:

>I know there are many on this list who think that web development 
>should not be limited to the restrictions of Lynx--the text-based web 
>browser.  I can even understand that point of view in the context of
>knowing that your site is targeted at users with graphical browsers.
>After experience last week with the inability to get to the new Barnes
>and Noble web site through 3 different Lynx installations ("Bad 
>address formation"), I sent them email.
>They responded "Our site is not supported by Lynx browsers." I did 
>point out to them that Lynx is the only browser I can currently deliver
>to 50 public libraries near NYC using low bandwidth lines and dumb 
>terminals, and these libraries have a high interest in the B&N site.
>I don't think they'll change unless they hear it from other users.
>
>			Jerry Kuntz
>			Ramapo Catskill Library System
>			jkuntz at rcls.org
>			A happy user of amazon.com

My reply:

This is a problem with many sites now, and the problem is destined
to worsen as graphical browser-specific HTML continues to
dominate contemporary webmastery.  And as more browser-
specific HTML tags get pushed through the Internet Engineering
Task Force, the World Wide Web Consortium,et al by the big
browser forces (Microsoft and Netscape), Lynx users will find
themselves increasingly abandoned, a sacrifice in the modern web
rite to the quasi-deific forces of Java, Shockwave, and Plug-ins.
It's a difficult realization, but the web everyone wants Lynx can
never provide by virtue of its text-only capabilities.

Yet, for all the lost standards and prettified (though occasionally
admittedly ingenious) interfaces and gadgets on web pages, I have
not noticed a convincingly Better Web.  As my library's webmaster, I
am obligated to stay on top of net technology, but I do have a choice
between temporal glamour and lasting HTML.  For me, the choice is
easy:  Standard HTML 3.0/2.0/1.0, and avoiding as much as possible such
things as browser-specific tags, Lynx-unfriendly frames, VBScript, and
style sheets.

While I do work in HTML 3.x, JavaScript, etc., I refrain from using
much of this otherwise intriguing technology in my library's web site--
the one exception coming with a search service I created called
Proteus, which is JavaScript-powered; not much of a loss to users
in terms of content, as it merely facilitates searching the web through
the a variety of preexisting, Lynx-friendly search engines, which users
can also reach through our website via search page links.

There is little point in providing content if you're only going to limit
your audience's access.  I believe Lynx users continue to be high in
number and will certainly remain a population meriting recognition and
access for years to come.  Many text-only terminals will eventually
be replaced with graphics-capable units, but we are a long way
from seeing this transition through to completion.  Until then,
webmasters will have to confront cool technology versus common
sense: make my site cutting-edge for a roomful of shallow users
who value interfaces and graphics more than the textual content,
or employ HTML most browsers can handle and every content-
hungry user out there will appreciate.

There are some things webmasters could do to expand web access
for Lynx users.  Completing ALT="" in IMG SRC statements would
be a nice start.  Refraining from imagemaps would also help.
I believe the latest version of Lynx handles a form of an imagemap, but
the standard imagemap continues to block Lynx users from accessing
parts of a web site.  Also, auto-redirecting links and mailto: links
(for users Lynx w/o e-mail access) prevent access in their own ways.

We will never have a 100% compatible web, but, the webmasters
among us can take sensible steps to restore some access to the Lynx
population.  I'm certain library-related agencies such as the ALA, in
their
broad advocacy of open access to electronic information, are rightfully
concerned many users without  a graphical browser are being
deprived of their right to the information at a web site.  So I join
Jerry
in advising users in not only contacting text-browser-unfriendly sites
and informing them of their audience-limiting Lynx-incompatibilities,
but I also appeal to my fellow webmasters to consider writing in a
purer HTML, if you aren't already.  There's nothing more aggravating,
webwise (via Lynx), than clicking on a link and getting any of the
following messages:

-SORRY, YOUR BROWSER DOESN"T SUPPORT FRAMES.
-YOU NEED NETSCAPE  TO VIEW THIS SITE. CLICK HERE.
-THIS SITE IS OPTIMIZED FOR MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER.
-YOUR BROWSER IS NOT JAVA-CAPABLE.
-BAD HTML

All these are barriers to information.  You should be able to drive
almost any car on the Information Superhighway and go a fair distance
without being forced or compelled to drive one of two standard makes
and models.  It's no longer accurate to ask, "Where do you want to
go today?"  The question for Lynx users is, "Where can we go?"

				Robert J. Tiess
				Middletown, New York
				rjtiess at juno.com