- From: Rachel Tanenhaus <rtanenhaus@adaptiveenvironments.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:00:25 -0500
- To: "'James Craig'" <wai-ig@cookiecrook.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi! I suspect you'll get different answers from people who use screen enlargers than from people who use screen readers. People who use screen readers are going to have a harder time figuring out the context of top-posts. People with low vision (*raises hand*), however, are going to have more difficulty telling the original message from the reply if the reply is embedded in the original message. Hopefully that made some sense. :) Top-posting makes my life easier, but I can certainly understand why someone using a screen reader or a refreshable Braille display would find top-posting to be Evil And Bad (tm). -Rachel Rachel H. Tanenhaus, MPH Information Specialist New England ADA & Accessible IT Center 374 Congress Street, Suite 301 Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 695-0085 (v/tty) or (800) 949-4232 (v/tty) (in New England) Fax: (617) 482-8099 E-mail: rtanenhaus@NewEnglandADA.org URL: www.NewEnglandADA.org -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of James Craig Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 3:53 PM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: [WAI-IG] list policies (top posting for vision impairments) A discussion on the WebDesign-L list got me thinking about list policies on accessibility-related lists. On general lists "top posting" is generally discouraged, however I've heard that it's beneficial for people with vision impairments. To clarify, top posting is responding to a post above or before the quoted post or question. [Start example] I think that XYZ is the best solution for FOO. John Doe wrote: > ABC is the best solution for FOO. [End example] What are the opinions on top posting from this list's vision-impaired subscribers? Thanks, James Craig -- http://cookiecrook.com/
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 16:00:28 UTC