Re: disappointed

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 chimbis@bahnhof.se wrote:

> Towards the very end on the 2nd millenium a being known as Hugh Sasse wrote:
> > It is a tool, and I don't believe it is perfect either.  If  
> > 	the forcefulness of my comments seemed religious, it was  
> > 	brought on by your assumption about blind people.  
> 
> I welcome anyone who might be able to use the 'net. If my statement
> about blind people was perceived as offensive I apologies. I have

	Apology accepted.  Thank you.

> nothing against blind people at all. The blind person visiting my site

	No, I understand that.  The assumption that got to me was:
	" I just suppose I have a hard time seeing (no pun
	intended) the web as a medium for blind people." -- which is
	not "having anything against" blind people, but leaves
	them excluded nonetheless.
	
> did not complain about not being able to navigate it, she asked as
> question about period cooking recipes. I just had forgotten that blind
> people actually use the net. No big deal.

	I know what you mean by "No big deal", i.e. it was just an
	oversight, but this "forgetting" is precisely what I was 
	talking about.  The rise and rise of GUIs continues, but I 
	think screen reading programs were still a year behind the
	last time I read about them.  I have been trying to get 
	large widgets under X on the Suns for about 10 years, but
	these things are forgotten.  Then there is the issue of
	accessibility for deaf people, terminals with "visible bells",
	text alternatives to audio files....

	If I have inspired you or anyone to consider these matters
	further I have a section on WWW accessibility here:
	http://www.eng.dmu.ac.uk/~hgs/index.html#wwwaxs
	More contributions to it are welcome.

	But I will end here, before my "soapbox" collapses! :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin S.
> 
	Hugh
	hgs@dmu.ac.uk

Received on Friday, 23 April 1999 05:10:25 UTC