- From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:45:20 -0500
- To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>
- CC: Claude Sweet <sweetent@home.com>, WAI Interest Group Emailing List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
add to this the cost of training and the steepnes of the learning curve and the free help available for those wishing to effectively design and you come up with a financially plausable reason for implimentation of an accessible design. "Gregory J. Rosmaita" wrote: > > aloha, claude! > > the logical flaw in your rebuttal to al gilman's contribution to this thread is > revealed in the (supposedly) rhetorical question you posed: > > quote > Is it realistic to expect small companies to expend > a large percentage of its resources on a solution for > which there isn't an existing problem? > unquote > > who says that an incredible outlay is necessary to achieve an interoperable and > accessible intranet? simply because only one browser is used to access it and > the company currently has no disabled employees doesn't reduce the overall > importance of designing to maximize interoperability -- the time that is spent > up front will be considered time well spent once (a) the company moves to > another platform, browser, and/or integrated application suite and (b) if one > of the company's current employees becomes disabled.... > > the type of thinking that leads to blanket assertions such as quote behind our > firewall we -- who currently have no disabled employees -- can do anything we > damn well please unquote is the same sort of short-sighted logic that brought > us the Y2K problem... and, as the Y2K mania in which our society is currently > indulging amply illustrates, the yeah, we'll address that when it becomes a > quote real unquote issue mode of thinking leads, ultimately, to a greater > outlay and loss of time, effort, and resources than does a bit of forethought > and planning... > > sure, as a former I.T. professional and intranet architect slash administrator, > i can understand the urge for uniformity, but i also know its stifling > limitations... i also know, from practical experience the limitations of the > cookie cutter approach to accessibility... the combination of illnesses that > caused my blindness also caused a severe loss of tactile sensitivity that > prevents me from reading braille with any efficacy... the end result is, that, > were it not for synthesized speech, i would be functionally illiterate... > thus, as one who is now umbilically connected to a computer device of some sort > in order to accomplish even the most basic of tasks (looking up a phone number, > leaving myself notes, keeping track of which album in which milk crate is > which, etc.) i also know that simply by switching from screen reader X to > screen reader Y while running the same mainstream application can cause a world > of difference, as well as dramatically increasing or decreasing the > functionality and usability of the mainstream application... > > achieving accessibility isn't as easy as it has been portrayed on this list by > some during the long, torturous history of this thread -- one can't simply slap > JFW or HPR on a workstation and say to the employee here you go, now stop your > whining since (amongst other reasons which could be cited): > > 1) the I.S./I.T. department of the company or entity in question has no > experience with adaptive/assistive technology, and hence are unaware of the > very real possibility that upgrading or applying a patch to a single piece of > software -- even one which the disabled employee never actually uses -- can > negatively affect (or even bring to a crashing halt) the performance of the > assistive technology being used by the disabled employee to perform even the > most prosaic of tasks > > 2) most people who rely on assistive technology are trained on a specific brand > of software, and making a drastic switch to another brand of assistive > technology not only means another steep learning curve, but that many of the > functionalities that the user took for granted when using adaptive technology X > no longer apply when using adaptive technology Y... this is particularly true > of screen reader users in the windows environment... most screen readers have > a set of mouse emulation keystrokes and scripted events (minimize all windows, > etc.) that the user learns by rote, never knowing that there are OS equivalents > to many of the emulated and scripted events (such as shift+F10 to simulate a > right-mouse-click, or WindowsKey+M to minimize all applications), with the > consequence that -- when the user is forced to migrate from the A.T. which has > hitherto been their life-line in the GUI environment to a different A.T. for > compatibility's sake -- or, to a piece of specialized software, such as HPR, > just so that they can access information on the company's intranet -- their > productivity will most likely slip dramatically... this leads not only to > decreased output by the person with a disability, but to the reinforcement of > negative stereotypes, as well -- the quote well, what more does he want unquote > syndrome, which is born of the type of ignorance that has been flagrantly > flaunted on this list, to wit, the quote just slap screen reader X on the > workstation and the accessibility issue has been addressed unquote... > > when it comes to accessibility, the cookie cutter approach of using adaptive > technology A in conjunction with application C does not, and cannot be allowed > to, suffice... > > i'll close with a brief illustration of my point... although i personally find > IBM's HomePage Reader (HPR) to be quite an incredible and impressive bit of > engineering, i have had innumerable members of the Visually Impaired Computer > Users' Group of New York City (for whom i serve as webmaster, minister of > propaganda, and president emeritus) tell me, after being exposed to HPR > firsthand, quote i'd love to be able to navigate tables and surf the web in > general like that, but i'll never remember all those keystrokes and commands -- > it's bad enough that i have to switch between 2 or 3 screen readers during the > course of a day in order to get my work done; the last thing i need is a whole > new set of commands to memorize unquote > > gregory > -------------------------------------------------------- > He that lives on Hope, dies farting > -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763 > -------------------------------------------------------- > Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net> > WebMaster and Minister of Propaganda, VICUG NYC > <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html> > -------------------------------------------------------- -- Hands-On Technolog(eye)s Touching The Internet: mailto:poehlman@clark.net Voice: 301.949.7599 ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman http://poehlman.clark.net Dynamic Solutions Inc. Best of service for your small business network needs! http://www.dnsolutions.com ---sig off---
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 1999 17:45:51 UTC