RE: Baseline capabilities

The problem that I see in making something pre-Win95 a requirement for
compliance is that there haven't been new development tools for Windows
3.1 since 1996, so even if a group had the resources and 16-bit Windows
development talent to work on such a project, they may not even have a way
to get the compilers to do it. 

On the other hand, DOS is still a viable operating system, it's still in
relatively widespread use in less-developed parts of the world, it has a
wide array of free development tools such as the DJ Delorie C/C++ suite,
and there are two freely available implementations in FreeDOS and OpenDOS.
The problem then is that many graphical applications, or systems that
require post-Bronze Age hardware or accessories, couldn't be done at all,
or without huge concessions, in DOS, so making it a required platform
could prevent otherwise helpful packages from being considered accessible.
For that reason, and the fact that Linux 2.0.x will run on 386es and
higher, and run DOS software to boot, I think Linux support is sufficient.
(Though maybe wording along the lines of "oh, and DOS support is good,
too" may help.)

----
matt
who should really lay off the run-on sentences. ;)


On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Lisa Seeman wrote:

> 
> First let me apologies for standing in the way of consensus, and for
> generalizing within this email.
> 
> It seems to me that the guidelines are intended as a generalization, for
> people with impairments, and as a generalization, such people are often
> unemployed or at in a lower wage bracket.
> 
> Now in our area we have a service, were distribute old second hand computer
> equipment, to people would benefit from it (I have about six or seven
> keyboards cluttering up my living room, a monitor under the bed...).
> Typically is used by people who are suffering from a condition that is
> preventing them from attending work, can continue working from home.
> Unfortunately all of these computers have old systems on them, win32 stuff,
> and do  not have the memory to run the latest system - even if it is
> available for free. Having spoken to people running similar programs in the
> US, this situation is again, typical.
> 
> It seems to me that we are basing our baseline capabilities around what you
> see in well financed offices, or what well employed people have in there
> house, but not around what is typical for the people for who the guidelines
> are intended, who are often home based, using second hand five year old
> systems.
> So back to the "what 80% of people use" syndrome, is this 80% of the general
> public, or s this 80% of our end user public. And anyway surly what these
> guideline are about are the 20% are people too.
> 
> L
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 14:46:16 UTC