RE: Web video accessibility

I'll pile on here - poor EmbedPlus people - only to say that Lynx is to
blindness as TTY is to deafness: a solution that used to be the only viable
one, but now has been joined by so many mainstream solutions that the real
problem now is figuring out which solution works best for which person,
trying to accomplish what, in what circumstances, and getting the word out
to consumers and others.
 
One more point - almost nothing is as de-motivating for mainstream
developers and marketers than to hear edge cases that are being presented as
life-or-death scenarios.
 
***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.908.907.2387 v/sms
skype jimtobias
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Karl Groves
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:09 AM
To: accessys@smart.net
Cc: John Foliot; EmbedPlus; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Web video accessibility
 
I think you may misunderstand the meaning of "lowest common denominator",
specifically the operative word "common".   Lynx is very definitely not
common among the PWD that I know, and for obvious reasons: there's a lot
better stuff out there, both free and non-free. Your arguments in support of
FOSS which you attempt to claim is due to poverty rates of PWDs are
unsubstantiated by anything more than simple conjecture and is still not an
effective argument for Lynx as the lowest common denominator. If you can
supply hard data which substantiates any claims that Lynx is widely used by
PWDs, please share it because I'm genuinely interested. Looking back at
lifetime analytics on my sites shows Lynx usage at 0.0%.

Karl



On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:16 PM, <accessys@smart.net> wrote:

we've been arguing since the web was a single spider.

I made it clear that I was testing with lowest common denominator.

I didn't say I routinely run lynx, but many do. have firefox and all the
others you mention...plus ORCA and EmacSpeak
 
Open-Source soap-box and rail your fist at the audacity of software
 
www.fsf.org
 
That truly depends on how you a) measure "access" and accessible, and b)
what your expectations of web content is.

25 years ago (when there was no "web"; the World Wide Web celebrating its
20th anniversary this month - August 6, 1991*) you had text-based systems
such as UseNet or IRC, but history and science march on, and today we have
 
was using arapanet via Westinghouse Aerospace in 1973.....on a UNIVAC 1108


nuff said.

Bob