This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --=======67A246B2======= Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; X-AVG-CHECKED=avg-ok-7A617501; CHARSET=US-ASCII; FORMAT=flowed Content-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207142114172.18685@TekRD.grg.afb.net> I used to wonder about this, too. Now, I think the answer is really quite clear. It's peer review. Good, old fashioned, academic-style, "I don't owe you anything," peer review. I think anyone, including programmers, takes a bit more care about appearance and quality when going on display. Hiding in a binary is a bit like eating alone--no one knows if you're a bit sloppy about it. Publishing the source means people can look, and many will. I heard a presentation by the project team leader from NSA that produced Security Enhanced Linux. They said very much this same thing. He credited the open development environment for helping NSA build a better app than they otherwise could have. On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote: > Hi Janina, > > Yeah, well, hmmm, that's something I have often wondered... Microsoft is a > very closed, proprietary operating platform, yet it is riddled with > security holes. Linux and related operating platforms, with their open > source model are much more stable and more secure. In some ways, this > would seem to defy logic. If the code is widely available, it would seem > easier to create exploits. Why is this not the case? > > At 07:43 PM 7/14/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > >Well then, Darrel, ask for it. Don't go around saying "if it works with IE > >and JFW/Win-Eyes, it's accessible." Say what you believe and call for > >adherence to consensus, open standards and protocols. > > > >Having the willingness to use what works should not blind one to having a > >clear view of where one's best interests lie. Don't sell yourself, and the > >rest of us, short. > > > >As to whether or not business will pick up open source and standards based > >services, that's also an issue we can debate. I believe they will because > >of cost. There's no intrinsic reason to replace business computers every > >two years and to upgrade an OS at cost every two years. Furthermore, the > >cost of bad programming and vulnerable systems will further increase the > >attractivness of secure and less costly systems. > > > > > >On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote: > > > >>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! > > > >-- > > > > 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! > -- 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 --=======67A246B2======= Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; X-AVG=cert; X-AVG-CHECKED=avg-ok-7A617501 Content-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207142114173.18685@TekRD.grg.afb.net> Content-Description: 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 --=======67A246B2=======--