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: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:29:24 -0500 (EST)
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
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: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1501271825130.30408@cygnus.smart.net>

you totally misunderstand what I was saying.

the Ford vs other vehicles is the same as saying it works on windows but 
not mac or BSD or unix or linux

and you think I am being hard, I have a modern computer with Broadband 
access and dozens of ways to access the net, BUT and this is a very 
important but,  too many people do not have this level of access and while 
I personally rarely use lynx much anymore I know quite a few people who do 
because it is what works reliably with thier screen readers.

and what is so hard about CSS not trying to limit the intenet but not 
trying to exclude people either.


On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, John Foliot wrote:

> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:20:19 -0800
> From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> 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>
> Subject: RE: Ubuntu on a dial up modem with Lynx (RE: PDF accessibility
>     guidelines. WAS: Re: PDF's and Signatures)
> 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:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix_and_Unix-like_ope
> rating_systems#Graphical)
>> 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.
> JF
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 23:49:05 UTC

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