Hey, John! I like that "Sindows" part in your note. Was that intentional? On a qwerty, it's easily the slip of a finger. But in braille? On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, John J. Boyer wrote: > Darrell, > A lot of us are trying to make Linux the manistream OS of choice. We > want to compete with Windows. It's by no means just a matter of > accessibility. > Sindows stinks! > John > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote: > > > Hi John and Janina, > > > > Perhaps, with respect to the Links browser, I am operating on somewhat of a > > lack of knowledge then, because I last used Lynx 2 or 3 years ago, and was > > not aware of significant further development. With respect to Links (l i n > > k s) I am totally out of my league. So, until I have gained a bit more > > knowledge of these browsers again, I shall refrane. > > > > However, to some extent, my argument remains. Windows is mainstream, while > > Linux is not. It is therefore logical, like it or not, that most web site > > designers will design to whatever technology most people use, to get the > > most bang for their limited bucks. Unfortunately, this may not include > > text based browsers such as those that run under a console on a UNIX > > platform. I desire greater accessible at every turn, and don't want to > > advocate for anything that might unduely restrict this possibility. My > > approach is, therefore, to promote accessibility for mainstream technology; > > if it also works under Linux and other less used platforms, then all the > > better! > > > > Though I am a Linux user and big proponent of Linux, especially on server > > platforms, I am also a realist. It seems that, despite all the widespread > > security holes and software bugs, there is absolutely no sign that > > Microsoft Windows is losing any ground in the computer industry. Please > > understand that I am not slamming Linux at all; I see Linux as eventually > > becoming the number two most commonly used operating system on the desktop, > > behind Windows, and surpassing MacOS. > > > > > > At 01:27 PM 7/14/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >Janina, > > >I agree completely. As an aside, one reason why I switched from Windows > > >to Linux is that Windows has all those scripting languages turned on by > > >default. This makes it like flypaper for viruses. unfortunately, unlike > > >flypaper, it doesn't kill the bugs. > > >I am gettying much better accessibility to the vast majority of Web > > >pages with Lynx and BRLTTY than I ever got with IE and Jaws. > > >As an example of an inaccessible site that is purportedly for people > > >with disabilities, take a look at www.sprintonlinerelay.com. It contains > > >no explanation of what it is and how to use it on the home page. The > > >help link depends on javascript. And a user on another list said that > > >while he could see what he was typing on his Braille display, he could > > >not see what the reply was. This site needs Work@ > > >I dislike flashy effects on personal grounds. Generally I avoid sites > > >that want me to download something. That's a security hole also. > > >John > > >On Sun, 14 > > >Jul 2002, Janina Sajka wrote: > > > > > > > Darrell, > > > > > > > > This is the second time in two days you've called lynx (with a 'y') > > > > obsolete. And, I want to dcall you on that assertion. > > > > > > > > Can you please explain what's obsolete about a browser still actively > > > > being developed? One that loads faster than IE, supports greater > > > > encryption levels than anything on Windows including Opera? etc. > > > > Do you assert it's obsolete because it doesn't support javascript? Well, > > > > neither does the W3C? Are they obsolete as well, then, by this logic? > > > > > > > > I know a number of folks, fully able bodied, who routinely turn off > > > > javascript support in their javascript capable browsers because they're > > > > loathe to let any site execute code on their local systems? In fact, > > > > javascript is arguably a security hole along with all other scripting > > > > languages that require local code execution on the client side. > > > > > > > > You've written in support of flashy effects. I have nothing against good > > > > visuals, but I have much against non consensus web practices that require > > > > particular technology and turn up the nose against other perfectly capable > > > > html user agents that do conform to consensus web standards. > > > > > > > > May I further note that 508 is not a consensus standard, but one imposed > > > > by a Federal agency, though certainly after input from affected > > > > communities. But it is not a consensus standard, but one of the Federal > > > > Access Board which has no technically noted members, and only one on staff > > > > with any real technical chops. > > > > > > > > I have no idea when last you used lynx, but I suspect you're opinion about > > > > it is the obsolete thing here. In my own use of lynx and IE I am quite > > > > surprised how often pages that don't work with lynx also don't work with > > > > IE or Netscape on Windows. Obviously, this isn't always the case, but it > > > > is the case very very often. > > > > > > > > This is my direct and recent experience. What have you compared recently? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, > > > > 14 Jul 2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeed, while I am definitely a Linux fan, I believe different > > > kinds > > > > > of technology have their own places. Linux is excellent for fast, > > > reliable > > > > > server computers, and for computer users who just can't afford expensive > > > > > operating systems and applications, as well as even more expensive > > > screen > > > > > readers. Nevertheless, we also can't expect all site designers not > > > to use > > > > > any "flashy" effects. Making such requirements part of any request for > > > > > greater accessibility is only going to hurt our cause. I just want > > > decent > > > > > access, I don't support making specific requirements that a > > > particular site > > > > > work with an obsolete browser such as Lynx. > > > > > > > > > > I am absolutely hopeful, and keeping my fingers crossed with respect to > > > > > Gnome, Gnupernicus, and other projects for access to the GUI under > > > > > Linux. If these solutions provide good access to a web browser like > > > > > Netscape, then all concerns about compatibility with Lynx for Linux > > > users > > > > > should be somewhat nullified, because blind Linux users would then > > > have the > > > > > ability to use a modern web browser. > > > > > > > > > > Just my $0.02! > > > > > > > > > > At 09:50 AM 7/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Darrell, > > > > > >I use Lynx all the time, and on the majority of Web sites it gives far > > > > > >better results than IE and Jaws ever did. Of course, BRLTTY has much > > > > > >better Braille output than Jaws. In any case, I'm not going back to > > > > > >Windows because some sites insist on using flashy effects. > > > > > >Oet's hope that Gnome 2 really has good accessibility features and that > > > > > >the Gnopernicus screen reader really has good Braille output. > > > > > >John > > > > > >On Sat, 13 > > > > > >Jul 2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Cheryl, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll check this one out shortly, but I do not believe good web site > > > > > > > accessibility absolutely requires that the site work with > > > Lynx. The Lynx > > > > > > > browser is quite obsolete in comparison to current > > > technology... If the > > > > > > > site uses Java Script, and Lynx can't do Java Script, then that's not > > > > > > > necessarily an accessibility issue if a Java Script capable > > > browser with a > > > > > > > screen reader can successfully render an accessible result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We must be careful here; what constitutes accessibility? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 07:18 PM 7/12/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi everybody. > > > > > > > >ray morgan, the 508 coordinator for the US postal Service, has been > > > > > > > >corresponding with me re: the inaccessibility of the www.usps.com > > > > > > site. I had > > > > > > > >pointed out to him that when using lynx one gets a message about > > > enabling > > > > > > > >javascript, and when using links-2.0 and above it is impossible to > > > > > > check out > > > > > > > >once you have placed something in your cart. He has been diligently > > > > > > keeping me > > > > > > > >posted regarding progress on the site. > > > > > > > >Today he wrote and said that i should be able to purchase and > > > check out > > > > > > > >now, but > > > > > > > >he also indicated that javascript support is still needed. He also > > > > > > indicated > > > > > > > >that testers found the site works with jaws, though he said some > > > more > > > > > > work > > > > > > > >needs > > > > > > > >to be done. > > > > > > > >I worte him back and thanked him for all his effort and > > > diligence in > > > > > > informing > > > > > > > >me, but also reminded him that usability with jaws and > > > accessibility > > > > > > are not > > > > > > > >necessarily the same thing. I pointed out that not everybody > > > wants to > > > > > > use Jaws > > > > > > > >and that not everybody who even wants to do so can afford it. I > > > told > > > > > > him I > > > > > > > >would > > > > > > > >let him know what happened when I tried to use the site again. > > > > > > > >Unfortunately, when I went to the site and again tried to buy > > > stamps, > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > >had changed for me. with links-2.1pre2 I was unable to go through > > > > > > checkout and > > > > > > > >with lynx I of course got the same old messages about enabling > > > javascript. > > > > > > > >I wrote to ray and told him that i would post on this list and > > > see if > > > > > > somebdy > > > > > > > >with more technical knowledge than I possess would like to try > > > to help > > > > > > track > > > > > > > >down the problem. If anybody is interested in trying to help > > > with this, > > > > > > > >Ray Morgan's email address is > > > > > > > >RMORGAN1@email.usps.gov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think he really genuinely is trying to work on this problem. > > > > > > > >Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Cheryl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Blinux-list@redhat.com > > > > > > > >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > > > > > > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > > > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > > > > >Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Darrell Shandrow > > > > > > > Access technology consulting / network and UNIX systems > > > > > > administration. > > > > > > > CompTIA A+ Certified Service Technician! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >Computers to Help People, Inc. > > > > > >http://www.chpi.org > > > > > >825 East Johnson; Madison, WI 53703 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > >Blinux-list@redhat.com > > > > > >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > > > > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > > >Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 7/10/2002 > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Darrell Shandrow > > > > > Access technology consulting / network and UNIX systems > > > administration. > > > > > CompTIA A+ Certified Service Technician! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Computers to Help People, Inc. > > >http://www.chpi.org > > >825 East Johnson; Madison, WI 53703 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > >Blinux-list@redhat.com > > >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list > > > > > > > > >--- > > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > >Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 7/10/2002 > > > > Best regards, > > Darrell Shandrow > > Access technology consulting / network and UNIX systems administration. > > CompTIA A+ Certified Service Technician! > > > > -- Janina Sajka, Director Technology Research and Development Governmental Relations Group American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Email: janina@afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175 Chair, Accessibility SIG Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF) http://www.openebook.org