Only addressing one point here.
I cannot use Orca, because the speech synthesis chosen for the program at
the very least causes dizziness for me, and at worse risks episodes
that mirror those experienced by some who manage epilepsy.
You cannot be expert on all the ways the human body personifies, making
such a blanket statement somewhat concerning.
How does this differ from those speaking of a blind community?
as for the definition of accessible, its a w3c one. Specifically that
tools must be browser device, and user agent agnostic.
Karen
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023, Linux for blind general discussion wrote:
According to Karen
Yes, the new Twitter owner fired the entire accessibility team, but how
are these services defining accessibility?
First of all, by having API's that allow the applications you choose to
interact with them.
by its actual meaning regardless of technology used, works from the
keyboard for example?
If that is your definition, there is an application that will fill that need
for you, or you can develop one.
You keep speaking of Orca, but what if one cannot, or chooses not to use
Orca at all?
Who cannot use Orca? If you choose not to use it, then this is your choice,
but you miss most of the accessibility of the modern web just for starters.
Applications that work with Orca work quite well from the keyboard and don't
need any other input to interact with them. Entirely text-based browsers on
the other hand generally do not take advantage of, nor do they support,
modern web technologies such as HTML5 and accessible JavaScript. They also
lack navigational features available from within modern browsers using Orca,
including but not limited to header/button/link/form field navigation and
lists of same. Keyboard navigation and activation of clickable elements is
also lacking in text-based browsers, making an even larger percentage of
websites inaccessible to them, but not inaccessible to Orca.
If the goal are options that lets individuals, regardless of label,
communicate with those they wish, and engage with the world as they
desire, then the access is based on progressive enhancement design, or
should be, not any specific screen reader if that resonates, speaking
personally.
I'm not catching your meaning here. All the tools I mentioned in my previous
message allow API access, meaning that anything in the world that can be done
from their websites can be done programmatically from an application or
script you can either download from somewhere or develop on your own, up to
and even including registering new accounts, posting, reading any timeline,
sending direct/private messages, etc. Also, if you find something missing or
lacking in any of these, they are all open source/free software, meaning that
you are free to modify them and redistribute your modifications, so you can
add API functions as well. This is as accessible as anything can possibly be,
and is exactly what makes them the best alternative to Twitter, Facebook,
pretty much any other walled garden so-called social network on the planet
that is run by a too-big-to-fail corporate entity.
~ Kyle
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list