Re: nomenclature

>Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> 
 I feel we get farther by emphasizing that the
> benefits of "universal design" grant "inclusion" to whatever people
> may be lacking it, PLUS it makes it easier for non-standard high-
> tech browsers to use the web, PLUS it makes it easier for search
> engines and other intelligent sifters to parse your site, PLUS
> blah blah blah.  Sell it all as a package, and we're much more
> likely to get at least ONE point that speaks to the listener.
> 
My background is in education and I can tell you that only in
universities
are faculty and students provided with the latest and greatest in
computer
and Internet technology.

Elementary schools and most home computers are older, slower computers
equipped with older and slower modems. Fancy Internet sites with all the
bells and whistles just take too long to download.

Options like including a text description of a graphic appeals to a lot
of 
people who are NOT disabled, but don't want to wait a minute or two for
a 
page to download.

The solution is having html authoring applications like Adobe PageMill
having
the features being discussed built into the program. I still have
problems
with convincing teachers that it is NOT necessary to learn how to
manually write 
html files for most people who are concerned with producing product
rather than
the process itself. I guess it is a carryover from the days of DOS and
the
demeaning remarks of DOS computer users about people who preferred the
graphic user interface of the Macintosh or Windows.

As I have grown older I tend to choose not to wage battles and
concentrate my
energy in accomplishing real projects that advance, however slowly, the
ideal
I support.

Claude Sweet

Received on Tuesday, 1 December 1998 15:33:01 UTC