Comments on IRC log

> # [07:50] <Lachy> aargh! It really annoys me how some people conflate
making content accessibile with providing fallback to those without the
necessary software

Am unsure of why this frustration arises. AFAIK the whole idea is that
accessible content/fallback content are for all intents and purposes -
the same.

> > # [07:52] <Hixie> the most annoying thing for me in public-html is
the way most people jump to a solution rather than determining the problem

Thats not true. People try their best to answer related threads and
contribute. If there is frustration about this then it should be made
more explicit that there is an expectation or preference for problem
determination rather than problem solution. That will totally confuse
the kids.

> > # # [07:54] <Lachy> yeah, that too. I tried getting people to focus
on the problem months ago, and it didn't really work then, and still not
working now
> > # # [07:55] <Lachy> like in the whole headers="" debate, I tried to
talk about how we could make tables accessible without needing headers,
and basically got accused of ignoring the needs of the accessibility
> > # # [07:55] <Hixie> yeah
> > # # [07:56] <Hixie> it's ridiculous

This is slightly alarming as it seems to say that - we tried to ask you
what you thought but we didn't like the answer we got so we may not ask
again in the future. As far as the headers thing goes I am totally in
the dark about what the suggested replacement technique was/is. Hence my
own insistence on keeping the whole id/headers thing afloat - for both
legacy UAs and also because I am confused about what the suggested
replacement should be.

> > # # [15:01] <Dashiva> This is orthogonal to fallback/alt content for
images, though
> > # # [15:05] <Lachy> oh well, the legal stick of accessibility has
been waived again :-/
> > # # [15:05] <Lachy> why is it that when accessibility advocates
can't come up with a rational argument, they always fall back to the
legal stick?
> > # # [15:08] <Dashiva> Well, maybe they realize there are no carrots
> > # # [15:25] <mpt> If the Web had smell-o-vision, would accessibility
advocates fight for longdescs of odors on behalf of those with no sense
of smell?
> > # # [15:27] <Lachy> A perfume site that made use of smell-o-vision
would probably provide a description of the smell anyway for all users,
so they can know what it's like before sampling.

This section is frankly kind of amazing. In several fell swoops the
entire efforts of the accessibility people on the list are dismissed as
almost Pavlovian responses and then an absurd dialogue about
smell-o-vision ensues. This is trivializing the efforts of people here
who are concerned about the needs of people with disabilities.



NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments 
is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of 
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify 
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to 
delete it and any attachments from your system.

NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated 
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, 
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are 
transmitted.  We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent the views of NCBI


Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 15:37:57 UTC