(unknown charset) Re: Ubuntu on a dial up modem with Lynx (RE: PDF accessibility guidelines. WAS: Re: PDF's and Signatures)

to use your example

the interstate does not state that you can only use Ford's on the higdhway 
and others cannot use it.

nor is a person denied access to be able to get from point A to point B 
only that the high speed route (although in LA that could be argued) 
rather they could take parallel local streets or even the bus.

it is not the speed but the access to the information we are talking 
about.
  and since approx 70% of persons with disabilities live below the poverty 
level it is of serious concern if we truely are talking about access to 
the final product.

Bob



On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, John Foliot wrote:

> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:33:27 -0800
> From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> To: olaflist@callassoftware.com, 'WAI Interest Group' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Cc: accessys@smart.net, 'Howard' <howard_leicester@btconnect.com>,
>     'Duff Johnson' <duff@duff-johnson.com>,
>     'Adam Cooper' <cooperad@bigpond.com>
> Subject: Ubuntu on a dial up modem with Lynx (RE: PDF accessibility
>     guidelines. WAS: Re: PDF's and Signatures)
> Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:34:12 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>
>> May I propose to move this discussion:
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2015, at 20:23, accessys@smart.net wrote:
>>
>>> can j, doe using ubuntu on a dial up modem read the document in say
>> lynx?
>>
>> into a separate thread?
>
> Done.
>
> I reject that entire line of discussion as one related to 'accessibility'.
>
> Is it related to technology, and regionalization, and equal access to all?
> Possibly, but only to the extent that the capability and tools do not exist
> to improve the end user experience. If everyone in the village is restricted
> to dial-up, then they share the same (poor) user-experience, whether
> disabled or not. If the disabled person on the other hand refuses to stay
> up-to-date, claiming preference or cost, then that is their choice - it is
> not one being imposed by society at large.
>
> I strongly believe in, and support, the idea of "The Social Contract", which
> simply put states that while developers have a responsibility to keep up
> with the Best Practices and techniques for creating accessible content, it
> is the end-user's responsibility to use the most current tools available to
> them.
>
> Yes, Ubuntu continues to evolve - but Lynx? Not so much.
>
> Here in California, as you prepare to enter onto a freeway, there is a sign
> that explicitly states that you cannot access that highway using pedal
> bikes, horse and buggy, walking/skateboarding/rollerblading, etc. In other
> words, if you want to use that freeway, you must be using the correct mode
> of transportation that the freeway was designed for.
>
> Further, that restriction is not put on *only* persons with disabilities, it
> exists for all users. It doesn't say that Mr. Horse-and-Buggy person cannot
> use *all roads*, just freeways. If you insist upon using a text-only browser
> on the internet today, then please, do not also expect that you can use the
> "internet freeways", or worse that those freeways should somehow not be
> "allowed" for fear that the horse-and-buggy crowd will feel slighted,
> rejected, or (god forbid) discriminated against.
>
> Nope, sorry. In 2014, if you want to fully realize the advances of the
> internet, which in 2014 is significantly more than just "reading documents"
> - it's now a fully functioning application platform - you need to use
> appropriately capable tools to do so. Lynx is no longer a full feature
> browser: choosing to use that tool remains your option, but if you are
> unhappy with its performance blame that tool, and not the content.
>
> That may not be popular with all, but it is the cold splash of reality that
> some in the disability communities sometimes require.
>
> JF
>
> (bracing for the backlash)
>
>
>