RE: Screen readers - usage stats?

Strange how new converts are so strong on fighting for the way they think
should be and so quick to decry the efforts of the longer standing.  It is
good to be concerned for the users, sometimes this is forgotten in the
technical solutions that some think are going to solve all, things like
serving special pages without considering that there are very very good
reasons why people may not want to have their specialised needs identified.
Maybe a little more reading of the archives may be called for before jumping
in.  I agree that recently this list has not been either the most
informative or the most pleasant way to spend time reading.

Harry Woodrow

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Julian Scarlett
Sent: Sunday, 18 April 2004 5:09 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Screen readers - usage stats?




Paul Davis wrote:
>  I suspect one of the reasons
> why J Chetwynd was lost this group after many years of valued input.
> 

I suspect there is more to it than that. Of course if you asked him you 
might find out <wink>

I have to admit that I'm starting to find this list a bit tiresome now. 


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004

Received on Sunday, 18 April 2004 05:34:58 UTC