RE: GW Micro Helps Make Macromedia Flash Content Accessible to People Who Are Blind

>I use a Macintosh
>and it is bad enough not being able to see many websites because they
>are coded for the Microsoft users of this world.

You can't fault web designers for building sites that work in the browser
that is used by about 91% of internet users
(http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp).  Now I know those
stats are probably a little skewed, but it can't be by that much.  And
please don't get started on the whole "Microsoft is a monopoly thing."  

If you want to be able to view all of these supposed web sites that don't
work, then you should be helping to promote web standards.  Designers build
sites to reach the largest audience possible.  This is a simple fact of
life.  I'm not saying this is necessarily the right way, but it is certainly
the reality of things.

>The Window-Eyes Professional software for Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP
>Home Edition, and XP Professional retails for $795.00,

I suppose you expect they'd give it away for free, or sell it for $30?
Sometimes the expectations that people have are just silly.

Randal


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Simon White [mailto:simon.white@jkd.co.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:28 AM
>To: Nick Kew; Aaron Smith
>Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Fwd: GW Micro Helps Make Macromedia Flash Content
>Accessible to People Who Are Blind
>
>
>Dear All,
>I happen to share some of the sentiments that are expressed on 
>this list
>following the announcement of the new Flash software. I use a Macintosh
>and it is bad enough not being able to see many websites because they
>are coded for the Microsoft users of this world. So, should I buy a new
>PC with all the latest kit just so I can 'see' this latest and greatest
>Flash website? I think not, and I don't think that I should be forced
>into doing so.
>
>While I think that Macromedia is doing the right thing in addressing
>accessibility of its multimedia software and how it is viewed, I guess
>that many would agree that this type of product would be better if it
>incorporated all users, regardless of hardware or software.
>
>One last thing: has anyone on the list tested this software? I just
>remember the AOL debacle...
>
>Kind regards
>
>Simon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nick Kew [mailto:nick@webthing.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 22:32
>To: Aaron Smith
>Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Fwd: GW Micro Helps Make Macromedia Flash Content
>Accessible to People Who Are Blind
>
>
>
>On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Aaron Smith wrote:
>

>
>Ahem, excuse me!  $795, plus the cost of Windows, plus the cost of
>hardware capable of running windows!  Not to mention the serious
>hassle of mopping up each new "virus"!!
>
>How the **** is that supposed to be "accessible" to any but a tiny
>minority of the richest blind people?
>
>It's good that you're providing such products, but only so long as
>noone starts using it as an excuse for neglecting users of lower-
>cost systems!
>
>-- 
>Nick Kew
>
>Site Valet - the mark of Quality on the Web.
><URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>VirusChecked by the Incepta Group plc
>_____________________________________________________________________
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 08:01:03 UTC