- From: <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:21:54 -0800
- To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: I18N <www-international@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF2E945022.A77B39B5-ON88257219.006A86F7-88257219.006FFC5A@spe.sony.com>
Dave wrote: > > A perspective might be, if all you can read is moon, its important to you. > Even braille presents less than 4% of what print readers have access to. > Not necessarily ... My friend would have no problem reading this e-mail thread using just his computer and a small electronic Braille device. Properly documented XHTML and standard text documents will translate through his Braille reader rather well so he can likely access significantly more than 4% of what I can in digital formats, unlike print formats which are 100% inaccessible to him. Though graphical content without alt tags is a problem and some sites are structured in ways that are less optimal for the blind, even Flash content can be developed such that it's accessible to the blind. My friend doesn't need to "print" or emboss Braille to be able to read online. Because of this, my friend and I could read the same document without a required transformation from a digital to physical format. The document's encoding is still en-US, even though he consumes the document in Braille. I guess that was my point with respect to the difference between the digital accessibility of Braille vs. Moon. I understand the purpose of Moon and that the encodings would be a transitional format to be rendered via an embossing tool. I'm not trying to say Braille is superior -- I guess I just find it interesting that though Braille was not developed with digital formats in mind, as opposed to other embossed formats, it is in many ways optimized for online use. I think I've side-tracked your original question, so I'll leave it at that. Regards, Karen Broome
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 02:36:59 UTC