W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Java I18N

From: <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:21:54 -0800
To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Cc: I18N <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF2E945022.A77B39B5-ON88257219.006A86F7-88257219.006FFC5A@spe.sony.com>
Dave wrote:

> 
> A perspective might be, if all you can read is moon, its important to 
you.
> Even braille presents less than 4% of what print readers have access to.
> 

Not necessarily ... My friend would have no problem reading this e-mail 
thread using just his computer and a small electronic Braille device. 
Properly documented XHTML and standard text documents will translate 
through his Braille reader rather well so he can likely access 
significantly more than 4% of what I can in digital formats, unlike print 
formats which are 100% inaccessible to him. Though graphical content 
without alt tags is a problem and some sites are structured in ways that 
are less optimal for the blind, even Flash content can be developed such 
that it's accessible to the blind.

My friend doesn't need to "print" or emboss Braille to be able to read 
online. Because of this, my friend and I could read the same document 
without a required transformation from a digital to physical format.  The 
document's encoding is still en-US, even though he consumes the document 
in Braille.

I guess that was my point with respect to the difference between the 
digital accessibility of Braille vs. Moon. I understand the purpose of 
Moon and that the encodings would be a transitional format to be rendered 
via an embossing tool. I'm not trying to say Braille is superior -- I 
guess I just find it interesting that though Braille was not developed 
with digital formats in mind, as opposed to other embossed formats, it is 
in many ways optimized for online use.

I think I've side-tracked your original question, so I'll leave it at 
that.

Regards,

Karen Broome
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 02:36:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:08 GMT