--=======12AA5FF1======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-46A8146E; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Janina, You'll be surprised to know that I agree 100 percent with all that you say below. I'm just not sure it is all that realistic. I'm concerned that it can't happen... We might get this kind of openness on Federal web sites, but probably not for business; business wants less, not more, government regulations and laws. Sometimes, I just don't know which answer will work best... Though I do prefer open source, I'll use the mainstream, closed source stuff when it is accessible and it works. Thanks. At 03:53 PM 7/14/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Hi, again, Darrell: > >Well, I can't accept this assertion either! <grin> > >Linux not mainstream? Maybe in 1998 I would have accepted such an >assertion. After all, back in 1988 we could say that Windows wasn't >mainstream, either. Not too many folks remember Microsoft Windows 2.0. > >But, I don't think you can say that anymore. What with Wall Mart selling >PC's based on linux and with one of the U.S.'s primary spy agencies giving >away Security Enhanced Linux on their web site--because it's the best and >most secure computing platform they could engineer--I think we've got not >only the server side in the mainstream, but also the non-teckie user side >as well. And, with thousands of blind folks now using various flavors of >Linux accessibility, I'd say we're catching up to the new mainstream. > >As to what web designers use, well, I'm afraid the sad truth resides in >the phrase you accurately, though perhaps unwittingly, used. Designers. >That's about the extent of it--designs and other visuals. And, whatever >tools they've learned to use in design school is what they adopt to >"design" their web pages. > >Of course, designing is a great way to leave people out, and that's what >we must oppose. We must require more than visuals. It's not that we're >against good looks, it's that we require service, not artistic expression. >The first job of a Federal web site isn't good looks, it's communication >with the public. Therefore, the site must repurpose for various output >modalities, from 17 inch screens, to speech synthesizers, to cell phone >screens, and to vxml driven voice-based services on 800 numbers. All of >this is achievable accessibly from the same database backend, but not if >you entrust the site to designers. > >Furthermore, I wouldn't entrust it to corporations whose principal >interest is the bottom line, or maybe even the personal pocket judging by >the news these days. Once again, the job of a Federal site is to serve the >public, not to dazzle it, or to enrich a particular corporation. > >So, I cannot accept that this corporation's browser and web server >practice, and that corporations proprietary rendering parser is at all the >way to get accessibility. That may have been an acceptable answer in the >1990's, but the calendar has changed. I have different criteria for >accessibility than those you expressed earlier, Darrell. I want >accessibility defined in openly published protocols and standards that >have been arrived by participatory consensus. I further want the right and >the wherewithall to modify any particular piece of technology involved if >I should need to modify it, whether it b the browser or the screen reader. >Of course, this goes against the stated interests of certain corporations, >but that doesn't make them right. > >The question then becomes, who do you trust? Do you trust yourself and >your community? Do you value peer participation and peer review? Or do you >simply accept closed deals behind closed doors published only as binaries? > >I think I've made my answer to this question clear. What's your answer? > > > >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 > > > > >--- >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! --=======12AA5FF1======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-46A8146E Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing 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 --=======12AA5FF1=======--