W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:43:03 -0500 (EST)
To: Goodin Donna <dgoodin@siu.edu>
cc: Alan Simpson <alan@coolnerds.com>, Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>, W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.1212142317270.26737@server1.shellworld.net>
well,
since you have decided to get personal about a computer you have never seen,
Dos is presently currently updated in the form of freedos, and even as 
enhanced Dr dos.
On my computer, the composite editions of dos and Linux to which I have 
access are far more current than 15 years ago I assure you...and given my 
ability to post here swiftly  this is no horse and buggy lol.
wow. a p4 horse and buggy?

I am sorry you chose to give your power away and got forced into anything. 
I am no guru looking for recruits, nor am I afraid to own  my own 
choices no matter what anyone else is doing.  nor am I suggesting anyone 
use a shell service or  alpine or 
tools for dos that allow for high speed connecting from the university of 
Waterloo in Canada.
I need no rest of us, apparently you must have a body of people to own your 
personal computing...and be your own person, that is your choice.

I might personally think your decision to   dump your 
years worth of cds for computer 
that might lose  them for good in any moment the height of madness...but I 
would say nothing  about that on a public list, because I have not seen do 
not use your computer, and am not you.your 
The rest of us does not exist, choose what you wish, as do i...but do not 
claim to be knowledgeable of the operating systems on computers of which I 
have 5, that you  have never seen.
Karen


On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Goodin Donna wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> My name is Donna Goodin.  I joined this list because, very unexpectedly, in middle-age, I found myself working as an adaptive tech specialist in a Disability Support Services Office, and one of my responsibilities is to work on web-accessibility on my campus.  As happens with many people's careers, this was not something I particularly sought out, but here I am.  I am visually-impaired myself, a user of Windows with JAWS, and also Voiceover and Mac.
>
> I have been a lurker on this list for some time, and really would have preferred to remain so, as most of you are far beyond my depth in your understanding of accessibility of web development.  I came here to be quiet and learn, but I know Karen from another list. Karen has shared on that list that she is still using DOS, and I believe a version of WordPerfect that still works with DOS.  I'll admit that when she wrote this, I was shocked.  I was slow to adopt Windows back in the '90s, and there is one on this list who can attest to my early frustration when learning to use Voiceover and the Mac (hi, David).  So, I'm not one to run to jump on the "get modern for modern's sake" band-wagon.  I get that different disabled users have different needs, but there's a difference between what one needs and what one chooses. Karen's insistence on sticking with an operating system that's out-dated by over fifteen years reminds me of the Amish community that lives nearby.  They choose to drive around in their horse-and-buggies, because it fits with their religious beliefs.  I respect that, and frankly, that's their prerogative.  But does that mean that we shouldn't build highways?  That we should only drive at speed-limits that are comfortable for someone in a horse-drawn carriage?  That we shouldn't pursue development of newer hybrid, fuel--efficient cars?  I think not.  While Karen--and the Amish--have a right to their choices, we can't let that hinder the rest of us who choose to move forward.  My husband and I just moved to Illinois from Michigan.  Before we moved, we used to drive here several times a year to visit our families.  It was a 10 hour car-ride that was only possible  because we had a car, if we'd had the horse-drawn carriage, this trip would have been much more difficult, if not impossible due to time constraints.  The technology of the automobile helped us to maintain ties with our family.  Had we insisted on traveling  by horse-drawn carriage, we would have paid a hefty personal price.   similarly, what we as disabled users can do on the web now so far surpasses what we could do back in the day. If Karen chooses to pay that price by sticking with an out-dated OS, then she has obviously decided that it's worth foregoing all the advantages that current technology has to offer.  It's certainly her right to make that choice, but does she really have the right to hold the rest of us to those limitations?  There's so much exciting stuff happening technologically, and part of that--though it's a sometimes frustrating part--is JavaScript.  As long as Karen can maintain her anachronistic life, that's her choice.  But do WCAG3 standards really mean that we have to cater to that choice?  If so, I need a different line of work.
> Cheers,
> Donna
> On Dec 14, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Alan Simpson <alan@coolnerds.com> wrote:
>
>> You're right, it's easy to create a website with CSS and HTML alone. not JavaScript. But an operating system is software that that drives hardware, and hardware does nothing without electricity. It's not possible for an operating system to do anything without power. It would be like trying to drive a car without gas and a motor.
>>
>>
>> You can certainly power up a computer without an OS, those of us whole build computers do it all the time. But you can't get the computer to do anything useful until you install and OS (operating system).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> wrote:
>>
>>> lol!
>>> i do not think those ideas match exactly.  One can create a site that does not use java script.  one can not run a computer without power, although you can power a computer in theory without an operating system.
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Ramón Corominas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Karen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> if it is possible for it to be turned off then that possibility exists
>>>>> because people will want to turn it off.  Therefore your site should do
>>>>> basic things without it, end of discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A computer has a button to turn it off. That possibility exists because people will want to turn it off. Therefore, the operating system should do basic things without power. End of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ramón.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2012 04:43:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 15 December 2012 04:43:31 GMT