W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

Fw: (Please read) Security vs accessibility?

From: david poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:45:05 -0400
Message-ID: <00ab01c46d9e$fc0605d0$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I'm forwarding this by request.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tighe K. Lory" <tkl02@health.state.ny.us>
To: "david poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: (Please read) Security vs accessibility?

I can only receive messages from the list, do you know how to become a

"david poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>
07/19/2004 10:16 AM

        To:     "Tighe K. Lory" <tkl02@health.state.ny.us>
        Subject:        Re: (Please read) Security vs accessibility?


Yes, I think bob may have mentioned this.  It was also mentioned on the
where I pulled the thread from initially.  I took a second look at the url
and am quite familiar with This work.

Howcome you can't post to the list?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tighe K. Lory" <tkl02@health.state.ny.us>
To: "david poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Cc: "Tighe K. Lory" <tkl02@health.state.ny.us>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: (Please read) Security vs accessibility?

This is called an "Audio Desktop" it integrates with the synthesizer
(hardware or software) and runs in a Linux environment.  As for banking
sites it depends on how they are built.  Here is more info:


You can leave the headers.

Tighe Lory

"david poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>
07/19/2004 09:45 AM

        To:     "Tighe K. Lory" <tkl02@health.state.ny.us>
        Subject:        Re: (Please read) Security vs accessibility?


Have you used this browser in windows with a screen reader?  How well does
it work if it works at all with jaws or window eyes?  If it is not a
browser, in its environment, can you access banks with it which say they
require internet explorer?  When I post this to the list, should I leave
headers intact?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tighe K. Lory" <tkl02@health.state.ny.us>
To: "david poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:22 AM
Subject: (Please read) Security vs accessibility?

Hi David,

        I am not able to post to this list, but I really feel that this
needs to be mentioned:


This has to be the most accessible solution for people who are visually
impaired.  It is the only web browser that supports Aural Stylesheets

Can you please post this to the list?

Tighe Lory

"david poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Sent by: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
07/17/2004 09:09 PM

        To:     "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
        Subject:        Security vs accessibility?

Hi all,

We've been having this discussion and here is the most recent message of
thread which has some interesting thoughts in it.

I have not cross posted because of potential complications with replies,
it might be helpful for this discussion to take place here given our
expertise and wide knowledge.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gene Asner" <gsasner@RIPCO.COM>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Scambusters Recommends Against Using Internet Explorer

There are two or three things to consider:
First, Since Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are the main browser
and e-mail program in use, virus writers and spyware writers focus on
these programs.  While Microsoft doesn't do as much as it could as fast as
it could to make these programs as secure as possible, any other browser
or e-mail program that became popular would be specifically targeted as
well.  I can also tell you with certainty that if a user of Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express takes the proper precautions, then he/she is
not at much risk for infection by viruses nor from spyware.  While
identity theft is a problem, there are all sorts of ways in which that
occurs and the problems with spyware and viruses isn't nearly the whole
picture.  I bet lots more people suffer identity theft by answering scam
e-mails that look as though they come from legitimate companies than do by
being infected by viruses or spyware.  I'm not saying that people
shouldn't be worried about potential problems with Internet Explorer or
Outlook Express but, and I am not saying this disrespectfully, since you
don't regularly use Windows programs and don't like Microsoft and since
these kinds of reports come up often, you are greatly exaggerating the
danger.  Perhaps you aren't exaggerating it for someone who doesn't have a
good antivirus program and either a good antispyware program or who
doesn't know how to set Internet Explorer and Outlook Express for the best
protection and who doesn't keep Windows critical updates current but for
those who take precautions, there simply isn't much danger.  These
programs really aren't hard to use and if someone is not technically
inclined and doesn't want to know how to do these things, most or perhaps
all the functions of these programs can be automated so the user seldom
has to do anything.

Technically, the main reason that other browsers don't work well with
screen-readers is that in order for them to do so, screen-reader
manufacturers and designers would have to specifically program through
scripts, set files, perhaps with code built into the screen-reader
itself,the ability for the screen-reader to work with each browser.  Even
using Microsoft Active Accessibility, MSAA, wouldn't help matters in terms
of making more browsers accessible because for this to work, the browser
designer would have to encorporate MSAA into the browser ore e-mail
program and then screen-reader designers would have to [program on their
end to allow the browser to work properly.  I agree that blind people
should have a choice of more than one browser.  but how many?  My opinion
is that Netscape should be the other.  Netscape is used in some work
places and it's probably the most important browser after Internet
Explorer in terms of meeting the needs of blind people.  Netscape is not
currently properly accessible.  They are supposed to be making an
accessible version.  Let's see how long it takes.  I'm talking about the
designers of Netscape, not screen-reader designers.  With all the other
needs blind computer users have for access to other widely used programs,
I certainly wouldn't want to see screen-reader designers divert time and
resources away from these other programs to make more browsers accessible.
What all this boils down to, in summary, is that while security is a
problem, it's not nearly as severe as it seems from the frightening
reports one sees.  It is possible, without all that much trouble, to
protect oneself from most threats, perhaps almost all.  And given the very
good access Internet Explorer and modern screen-readers give to the
Internet, there is no other remotely reasonable alternative if one wants
access to full Internet functionality.  I can't comment with much
knowledge about those using Linux (spelling) but I'd be very doubtful that
Linux screen-readers provide nearly as good access.  I use a Windows
browser, the old Home Page Reader, which I consider, in some ways to be
superior to Internet Explorer.  Mainly it loads pages much faster on a
dial-up connection and I like the interface more.  But it is as limited as
using a shell account because it doesn't support scripting.  If one is
really interested in using the Internet fully, at least for Windows users,
there isn't anything comparable to Internet Explorer.  And let's keep
things in perspective in another way.  In the old days, before Windows 95
and newer versions, it was considerably more work learning how to set up
and use a terminal program and also learning how, with many
screen-readers, to set them to work properly while online.  so, while
using an antivirus program and doing the other things necessary to protect
yourself seem like lots of work, you're forgetting that it was no picnic
before either.  It's a question of what was more work, in the early days,
it was learning how to connect and setting up one's screen-reader.  Now
it's protecting yourself.
Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 10:45:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:29 UTC