RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation

Chas,

At 11:15 PM 8/29/01 -0700, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>Anne:
> > I'm not sure that judicious use of graphics will accommodate the
> > folks who
> > need it so much as a comprehensive use of graphics to enhance
> > comprehensibility on we pages ....
>
>I think that maybe the problem here is confusion about the meaning of the
>word "judicious." According to my dictionary, it means "Having, applying, or
>showing sound judgment; wise and careful." [Webster's New World, 2nd College
>Edition]
>
>Nowhere in sound judgment, wise, or careful is any limit on quantity
>implied.

No, I was probably reading with emotions left over from the flames that 
made me view any modifiers as limiting.
Bad thing about flames, they sometimes re-kindle ignobly ....

> > If you don't have the technology, you just get a message
> > it isn't
> > there. If the guidelines are followed, you will have a text
> > alternative if
> > it doesn't work. So access is denied to no one with older
> > technology .....
>
>If text is not enough for users with cognitive disabilities, how can it be
>enough for poor users? Aren't there any poor users with cognitive
>disabilities? Aren't there any users in Third World countries who have
>cognitive disabilities? You keep avoiding these questions, Anne. Please
>answer them directly. How are users with cognitive disabilities and older,
>legacy equipment with slow connections able to comprehend Web pages if they
>must turn their graphics off? How can lack of graphics be an impediment to
>First World users with cognitive disabilities but not to Third World users
>with cognitive disabilities?

Text is not enough for poor users, but if the graphics aren't there the day 
after the poor user gets a better computer, they are no better off for a 
new computer!  Yes, there are people in third world countries with 
cognitive disabilities and they will not be able to access the web with an 
older computer ... Turning the graphics off is a choice. Someone with a 
slow connection who is cognitively disabled will have to wait for the 
graphics to come in - but for them there is absolutely no advantage to 
turning off what they need so they to get in faster what they cannot use. 
And again, if the graphics aren't there, they have nothing to come to that 
web page for anyway .....

No matter how you cut it, if the graphics aren't there, NO ONE benefits, if 
they are there some benefit now, some later.

>You say that wise, careful use of graphics will deprive some users of
>access. You do not explain how or why. Then you refuse to acknowledge that
>bandwidth-intensive content can deprive others of content, or you dismiss
>their concerns as inconsequential. Why are some groups of people more
>important than others in your view? Why are the rights of cognitively
>disabled people in First World countries *more important* than the rights of
>cognitively disabled people in Third World countries? I'm really confused
>here.

Bandwidth-intensive content cannot deprive anyone of anything. It is the 
receiving hardware that deprives. That is the point of saying "Include 
Illustrations" .... if they aren't there, everyone loses no matter which 
world they live in.

>The reason this discussion has gone round and round on this list is because
>it has never reached completion. In order to achieve closure, we must get
>everything clear and out in the open. So I would very much appreciate clear,
>concise, direct replies to the questions I asked in the previous two
>paragraphs.
>
>I look forward to reading your reply.

Sorry, can't say it all in two paragraphs anymore than you can .... you 
have to take each point ....


                                         Anne



>Chas. Munat

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 20:12:35 UTC