That may work on the backend but not at all on the front-end. 20 years ago was the time of windows 2000 and Mac os 9. Not much about mobile applications. You could still use web technologies supported by internet explorer 5 though.
Absent a link to support your claim, color me skeptical in the extreme that your "squirming" led to something remotely resembling a reasonably interactive, performant, maintainable web application. Perhaps you mean you've published some static HTML documents resembling a 1990's website?
It is a forum website with accounts, tagging, sorting, and moderation.
All these features are accessible to Netscape 2+ and IE3+, and also Opera 3+, Opera 12, Lynx, Links, w3m, NetSurf, Dillo, and many others, with and without JS enabled.
Accounts require cookies for now. Some enhancements require JS.
Mostly built by one dev in (copious) spare time.
My motivation is to preserve the knowledge of building compatible Web apps, to allow anyone to access my site, and to embarrass the big websites which complain if your Chrome is a couple versions behind.
I believe in aiming for 100%, not 95% accessibility, and here are some scenarios I've tested with:
* Older devices like my beloved iPads running iOS 7 and 8, which won't upgrade past that.
* Vision-impaired users with screen readers.
* Library computers stuch with IE and very old Firefox.
* Restricted access connections, browsing (and posting, and voting) via Google Translate.
* Slow connections and slow devices forced to browser without JS.
* Text-mode browsers Lynx and Links which were my only option at the time.
* Device without a keyboard available (I have several on-screen keyboards to choose from)
* Device without my keyboard layout of choice. With JS, I have two translit options at this time: phonetic-Cyrillic and Dvorak. NoJS support to come.
* Retro browsers from a long time ago with their unique beauty and features, e.g. Mosaic, IE3, Netscape, IE6, Opera 3, etc.
Some may consider these to be "edge cases" not worth a bother, at less than 0.1% of the visitors. I guess they might also consider a wheelchair ramp unnecessary, since it only gets used like once a year. I consider all these scenarios to be opportunities.
That's an impressive set of claims. But following your profile link (via bog-standard iOS 14, current Safari) triggered a prompt for credentials, with no hint as to their purpose or usage. That's as broken and inaccessible a UX as I've encountered in a long, long time.
The credentials are listed directly below the URL in my profile.
The site is just a demo for hackers and friends, not for general purpose use.
HTTP Basic auth helps prevent bot crawling, which the site is not yet optimized to cope with, while being by far the most supported auth scheme from mid-90s to today.
ps I'm really not trying to antagonize you; was genuinely curious about your claimed super-accessible website, and kept trying. Done now, have a great day and see you around HN.
