- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:41:30 -0400
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Philip TAYLOR wrote: > There was : your message suggested (quite explicitly, > if I may say so) that those who are dependent on voice > synthesisers do not know how to read; I found this > somewhat offensive, and tried to suggest that those > who so dependent are physically incapable of reading > (as I chose to define it) rather than not "knowing > how to read". There seems to be some terminology confusion here. In context, as far as I can tell, I was replying to a claim that if someone can't produce universally accessible content (through lack of ability or effort), then that person can't write and shouldn't be producing context. I honestly ask why that situation is different from that of someone who (through lack of ability or effort) is incapable of accessing content in the most common format it's created in. To me the two situations are symmetric: just as the second person would ideally be able to get the content in an alternate form, the first one should be able to publish. And yes, there is ambiguity in the term "read", as in the term "write". I'm glad we seem to agree on things once they are properly defined. -Boris
Received on Sunday, 24 August 2008 21:42:17 UTC