Re: practical concerns for moving PEAR forward

If "Web 2.0" features are added, then it would be wise to have it gracefully degrade to a point where a simple browser like Lynx can utilize the entire website. I personally use Lynx and various other terminal-based web browsers often, and would assume many others do as well. It would be a great disservice to the PEAR users who do not have X or graphical browsers available to them. By having sections which are not Lynx-friendly you risk losing many things. One would be developers: What would make them want to contribute their code that they have worked to be compliant, consistent, etc. only to be faced with the daunting task of utilizing a website which is not easily accessible to them? The other main consequence would be the users. I'm not talking about current users who are happy with PEAR, but with the future and the ones that are less satisfied. When faced with a difficult-to-browse website, I often never visit it again and my usage is quite limited, this may also throw the unsatisfied user over the edge, essentially losing them. Again, I am not entirely against using "Web 2.0" features, it can be wonderfully applied if done conservatively. I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it must degrade gracefully and entirely in my opinion. An alternative website for the parts that can't degrade is a possibility, but when that is thrown into the mix it often remains unmaintained and out of date. ------------------------------------ Graham Christensen www.itrebal.com