- From: phoenixl <phoenixl@sonic.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:34:48 -0700
- To: phoenixl@sonic.net, poehlman1@comcast.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi, An interesting question. Now as near as I understand, the various companies mentioned have not done much testing about how fast blind people use web pages compared to sighted people. A hard question that people often avoid is whether the rate of increase of capability is the best that could be achieved or could it be better? Is this an question that needs to be answered technologically? When the president of NFB recently spoke on the Berkeley campus, he made an interesting comment. Until recently, the NFB has been totally opposed to auditory signals at intersections. At the presentation, he indicated that they now believe that use of auditory signals should be evaluated on a case by case basis. It had me wondering how often philosophical beliefs impede the evaluation of technology. For example, suppose they had set up a series of users tests of people using auditory signals at intersections rather than waiting for random experience with the technology. They may have reached a better understanding of the benefits of auditory signals at intersecions sooner. Scott > so what are gw micro and freedomscientific and dolfin and others doing > spinning their wheels then? Why is it that our capability grows with > each new release? This is not a blind thing.
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 11:35:29 UTC