W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2011

RE: Web video accessibility

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:15:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
cc: "'Karen Lewellen'" <klewellen@shellworld.net>, "'EmbedPlus'" <ext@embedplus.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1108171249400.5442@cygnus.smart.net>



just once, someone will get it.
access means access.
seems simple.

not picking on anyone (except maybe John but we have had this discussion 
many times before)

maybe I had my expectations raised too high by the PR

try this, what text based FOSS system with allow one to inpendently find 
and listen to a Utube video, many of them are serious interviews but how 
do you find them.  ORCA will sort of do it but not without serious hunting 
and moving around blindly (bad pun)

probably misread the blurb but that was the hope.

and "conventional browser" could best be defined as "the one I'm using"

true story "I was in Central America and in the capital city of one of the 
country's, I visited the local Independent living center, the only one in 
the entire country I think.  sitting in the office was a single Apple II 
and a dial up modem with acustic coupler...!"

the frustration with the web they expressed was palpable, one of the 
leaders left the room they were so frustrated,   the phone lines were so 
bad that my laptop wouldn't even hold a connection.

these and the thousands more that we haven't found are part of this WORLD 
wide web community.

(I later found and sent them a 486 computer with external modem that they 
got working)

this is the problem that we are often ignoring....

I will not forget their faces and the desire to connect. and for many of 
them lynx is the advanced browser.

I have several desktops open on my computer at one time, but desktop #1 is 
always set as a text only desktop and only text based programs are run 
there.  sure I have firefox and konquerer and more garbage piled up on my 
dual core 1.6tb dual harddrive computer, but and this is the BIG but. I am 
and most of us on this list are not "average" users and especially not the 
"average" disabled user.

and we are not trying to build for the average user but for the basic 
barely on the net user.   I have no problems with the latest and greatest, 
but everyone writes for the latest and greatest and very few current users 
can actually use that.

our charge if I understand it clearly is to help make sure no one is 
excluded from the Web...   if I come across gruff so be it, am old enough 
to retire and the IT world has advanced, even I no longer use punch cards 
to program. (but I bet I still could)

CSS and graceful degrading seems to be a lost art.... (at least FSF has 
got it and keeps their website accessible, so far)

please let us not forget the core mission.   the web is not accessible 
until everyone can use it.  and I define "everyone" as everyone.

Bob


On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, John Foliot wrote:

> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
> To: 'Karen Lewellen' <klewellen@shellworld.net>,
>     'EmbedPlus' <ext@embedplus.com>
> Cc: accessys@smart.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web video accessibility
> 
> Karen Lewellen wrote:
>>
>> Half a moment,
>> now I am confused by your comment below.
>> "please look at embedpous.com with a conventional browser."
>
> Would the term "full feature" make things more palpable for you Karen?  Or
> perhaps simply "a browser that supports Flash-based content"?
>
>
>> care to define that term where accessibility is concerned
>
> Care to define accessibility where browsers are concerned?
>
> Care to define who is responsible for what in the social contract that is
> interacting on the web in 2011?
>
> If you want to have a debate about digital inclusion on the web today,
> pick on somebody who has more than 4 days experience and exposure to this
> forum. Poor Tay/EmbedPlus, he must be sitting there thinking "These people
> are crazy, why should I even bother?" - and you know what, based on how he
> has been treated here, he would be perfectly justified.
>
> You don't grow a community by slamming doors in people's faces, or
> publicly ridiculing them for not grasping the nuances of a community's
> culture. Instead, we should be welcoming them in, and when they make early
> missteps, quietly and privately teach them the better way. If every new
> developer approaching this list and this community is treated the way Tay
> has been treated over the last few days, we simply will not get more
> developers working on "our side". How does that benefit anyone? Seriously?
>
>
>> If your tool is for the general public, that public will decide based on
>> their computer needs what browser fits them, just as individuals decide
>> what mode of transportation is best for them.  There is *no* such thing
>> as a conventional browser.
>
> What is unclear to me is how continued brow-beating of the EmbedPlus folks
> over their unfamiliarity of the accessibility space, the terms and
> conventions we use, and the nuanced points this note and Bob's responses
> are trying to make, serves to advance the cause. The tone of the discourse
> is all wrong, intentional or otherwise.  Karen, you knew full well what
> Tay meant when he wrote "conventional browser" - he is referring to a
> mainstream, GUI based, modern browser that currently supports Flash-based
> video, and specifically YouTube videos. If you want to correct his
> nomenclature, do so charitably, not with the snarky tone you have taken
> here. Educate, don't ridicule.
>
> (Does everyone remember the expression "there's no such thing as a dumb
> question...")
>
>
>> The suggestion that a person using the best tool
>> for their needs is defying some sort of convention, is a disturbing one
>> to hold on a list focused on making access for all the ahem convention.
>> Care to clarify?
>
> Hopefully my response on behalf of Tay is clear enough.
>
> JF
> (taking on all comers)
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 17:16:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 17 August 2011 17:16:28 GMT