W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2015

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

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:20:19 -0800
To: <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: <olaflist@callassoftware.com>, "'WAI Interest Group'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'Howard'" <howard_leicester@btconnect.com>, "'Duff Johnson'" <duff@duff-johnson.com>, "'Adam Cooper'" <cooperad@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <01e101d03a87$d176e390$7464aab0$@ca>
accessys@smart.net wrote:
> to use your example
> the interstate does not state that you can only use Ford's on the
> highway and others cannot use it.

However, that is not what I said, and this is simply not a truthful analogy.
The sign does not say "No Chevys, Toyotas or BMWs" it says "No Bicycles,
Skateboards, or Rollerblades".

There are plenty of people who do not have cars, who DO have bicycles, but
to-a-one they are not allowed to bicycle on Interstate 80. This is not
discrimination, nor is it a failure to be inclusive. It's about using the
right tool for the job, and while Lynx might be a decent enough tool if all
you want to do is read static web pages, it lacks other functionality that
today is critical to fully use the modern web.

You can however access that modern web with any number of current, modern
web browsers - and certainly in Europe (where until this past December they
made it mandatory) that choice is made obvious and clear to all users.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu)

(And anticipating the "cost" card being played next, there are multiple
modern FOSS browsers that work on Linux today:

> 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 truly are talking about
> access to the final product.

You are conflating access to information beyond the scope of web
accessibility, and further, you seem intent on placing the blame on the
content (and content owners and creators), and not the tool(s) you insist
upon using.

That of course is your right, but I think you will find that you are in an
increasingly small number, and that your arguments about access to
information go far beyond any technical discussion - they are social by
construct, and seemingly fail to recognize that an all-or-nothing manifesto
often leaves you with the later.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that the job is done with regard to web
accessibility, but strident, stuck in the 20th century insistence on
unrealistic requirements (like suggesting that to be truly accessible it
needs to work in Lynx) only creates an environment where mainstream content
owners, confronted with an absolutist position like that, will stop trying,
as there is no way that they will be able to succeed to your liking. I am
significantly more concerned about losing *that* battle, then I am about
walking away from Lynx.

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 23:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:51 UTC