Probably the representatives of the major wireless providers that you talked to were clueless.
In the U.S., you can choose from the LG 5350, Motorola A388/i85s/i55sr/i50sx/i80s/i90c/i95cl/T720, Nokia 9290 Communicator, RIM BlackBerry 5810/6710, Samsung SPH-A500/SPH-N400, Sanyo 4900, Sanyo 5300, and lots more that will soon be available if they're not already.
When I saw the headline, I thought the article would be about Internet access using just the phone. For those not wanting to lug around the laptop, you can download a Web browser and email client for the Sanyo 4900 (and most other J2ME phones).
Are you saying an online clothing store or an online furnature store or an online real estate store are not visual?
Not inherently visual, no. The pictures are certainly useful, but there's no reason why blind users (including search engines) shouldn't have access to the descriptions and prices.
I never buy anything from Ebay without seeing a picture of it, nor would I bother visiting a house without a picture.
Not everyone is like you. Blind people shop for houses too.
Being blind and using an inherently visual medium is always going to be difficult in some way.
True, but the Web is not an inherently visual medium. There is nothing inherently visual about the comment you posted or the words I'm typing now. I could just as well be listening to your post read aloud and dictating my response by voice.
There is nothing inherently visual about buying airline tickets over the Web.
What about those that are illiterate? Shouldnt' they have the right to access the site?
If the site were accessible to the blind, it would also be accessible to illiterate people since both can use voice browsers or screen readers.
(Now backup to where this guy realizes he can't read the website. Instead of suing he could've done several things - called the phone number, had a friend read the website, chosen a more accomodating airline (personally this probably would've been the simplest course - through in a little media outrage if you're really pissed), etc. What would've been simpler?)
Perhaps the guy is not happy being treated as a second-class citizen.
As in the real world, it's cheaper to consider accessibility during construction rather than after. The problem on the Web is that companies fail to consider accessibility when constructing their Web sites even though they would never make that same mistake when constructing their buildings.
If a company hires unqualified contractors to build their physical storefront and that storefront turns out to be inaccessible, should the company be exempt from the ADA?
We're not talking about driving or rock-climbing. We're talking about access to text information. There is no reason why text information cannot be accessible to the blind.
Fact is, most new developers aren't even aware of the alt tags
So what you're saying is that because most Web developers aren't qualified for their job, we can't expect businesses to produce accessible Web sites? So if businesses hired shoddy contractors to build their physical storefront, would that be an acceptable excuse to avoid accessibility laws?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Web is a purely visual medium. Sure, there's lots of visual pr0n that can't easily be made accessible to the blind, but in the case of Southwest Airlines and most other business sites, there is nothing inherently visual. It's just text information marked up using HTML, and there's no reason why that information can't easily be accessible to the blind.
But with Opera you get a better browser with more capabilities.
That's hard to say with their Sony Ericsson P800 and Nokia 7650 versions as they're not released yet. I suspect that Opera will be considerably slower than Reqwireless WebViewer since Opera does everything client-side whereas WebViewer uses a transformation server to scale the images and reduce the data traffic required.
"Opera still seems limited to Symbian OS phones
Nope. They target embedded Linux and QNX as well.
Right, but I was thinking of mobile phones, where J2ME is much more common than Symbian OS. The same Reqwireless WebViewer that works great on the Nokia 7650 also works fine on the Motorola V60i--a small, black and white phone with a 96x54 screen.
If you've got a Nokia 7650, you don't need to wait for Opera's next-year release. You can enjoy the real Web today, with no horizontal scrolling (unless you want it when viewing full-size images), using Reqwireless WebViewer. Also works with most other J2ME phones.
Reqwireless WebViewer already solved these same problems almost a year ago, and with the added bonus that it works on many more mobile phones than what Opera appears to be targeting.
Opera still seems limited to Symbian OS phones like the Sony Ericsson P800 and Nokia 7650, which Reqwireless WebViewer supports. Additionally, Reqwireless WebViewer works on phones such as the Motorola i85s, i95cl, Accompli 008, T720, V60i, Samsung SPH-A500, and RIM BlackBerry 5810.
(Disclaimer: I work for Reqwireless and wrote most of WebViewer. I'm kind of annoyed that Opera is acting as though they've done something new.)
Re:Other products using Java-based OS?
on
Motorola's i95cl
·
· Score: 2
There's no need to stop supporting Netscape 4.x. If you have problems with Netscape 4's CSS support, just hide the style sheet by using media="screen, not Netscape4" in your or tag. If you use HTML and CSS properly, then the resulting page should be perfectly accessible (though somewhat bland) in Netscape 4.
There are many atheists in the world who don't need a god to give them morality. That some people use their religion for their moral system does not imply that religion is required for people to be moral.
As you don't believe in God, what is your reference for saying that the world is screwed up?
Common fucking sense. People are perfectly capable of learning that physical pain hurts and that emotional pain hurts. People are perfectly capable of learning that giving love to someone is more rewarding than giving pain to someone.
No god is required for people to recognize that some things are good and some things are bad.
The hoops are for writing network-aware MIDlets. If your MIDlet is standalone, you can develop it and offer it to others without much trouble.
Unfortunately, MIDlets that use the networking API are more restricted at the moment. North American carriers only seem to allow non-developers to install network-aware MIDlets from the carriers' sites. In the case of Nextel, they require developers to go through expensive certification before they'll make your MIDlets available to general users.
The good news is that the rest of the world is more free. You can develop network-aware MIDlets and offer them to users of the Motorola Accompli 008 and Siemens SL45i. No hoops to jump through, just some uncertainty since these devices aren't available in North America so you can't really test on them (although there's a simulator for the SL45i).
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the representatives of the major wireless providers that you talked to were clueless.
In the U.S., you can choose from the LG 5350, Motorola A388/i85s/i55sr/i50sx/i80s/i90c/i95cl/T720, Nokia 9290 Communicator, RIM BlackBerry 5810/6710, Samsung SPH-A500/SPH-N400, Sanyo 4900, Sanyo 5300, and lots more that will soon be available if they're not already.
I've never encountered a Java-based phone that didn't allow people to install their own apps for free.
Here are some Java-based phones that I know allow developers to install their own apps:
When I saw the headline, I thought the article would be about Internet access using just the phone. For those not wanting to lug around the laptop, you can download a Web browser and email client for the Sanyo 4900 (and most other J2ME phones).
Not inherently visual, no. The pictures are certainly useful, but there's no reason why blind users (including search engines) shouldn't have access to the descriptions and prices.
Not everyone is like you. Blind people shop for houses too.
True, but the Web is not an inherently visual medium. There is nothing inherently visual about the comment you posted or the words I'm typing now. I could just as well be listening to your post read aloud and dictating my response by voice.
There is nothing inherently visual about buying airline tickets over the Web.
The products for the blind do just fine when the HTML is written properly. There's not much they can do when it's not.
Do you expect the products to find the meaning from <img src="dfjaslkdfjaldk.gif">?
If the site were accessible to the blind, it would also be accessible to illiterate people since both can use voice browsers or screen readers.
Perhaps the guy is not happy being treated as a second-class citizen.
As in the real world, it's cheaper to consider accessibility during construction rather than after. The problem on the Web is that companies fail to consider accessibility when constructing their Web sites even though they would never make that same mistake when constructing their buildings.
If a company hires unqualified contractors to build their physical storefront and that storefront turns out to be inaccessible, should the company be exempt from the ADA?
We're not talking about driving or rock-climbing. We're talking about access to text information. There is no reason why text information cannot be accessible to the blind.
So what you're saying is that because most Web developers aren't qualified for their job, we can't expect businesses to produce accessible Web sites? So if businesses hired shoddy contractors to build their physical storefront, would that be an acceptable excuse to avoid accessibility laws?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Web is a purely visual medium. Sure, there's lots of visual pr0n that can't easily be made accessible to the blind, but in the case of Southwest Airlines and most other business sites, there is nothing inherently visual. It's just text information marked up using HTML, and there's no reason why that information can't easily be accessible to the blind.
The difference is that it's easy and inexpensive to make a Web site accessible to the blind.
That's hard to say with their Sony Ericsson P800 and Nokia 7650 versions as they're not released yet. I suspect that Opera will be considerably slower than Reqwireless WebViewer since Opera does everything client-side whereas WebViewer uses a transformation server to scale the images and reduce the data traffic required.
Right, but I was thinking of mobile phones, where J2ME is much more common than Symbian OS. The same Reqwireless WebViewer that works great on the Nokia 7650 also works fine on the Motorola V60i--a small, black and white phone with a 96x54 screen.
If you've got a Nokia 7650, you don't need to wait for Opera's next-year release. You can enjoy the real Web today, with no horizontal scrolling (unless you want it when viewing full-size images), using Reqwireless WebViewer. Also works with most other J2ME phones.
Reqwireless WebViewer already solved these same problems almost a year ago, and with the added bonus that it works on many more mobile phones than what Opera appears to be targeting.
Opera still seems limited to Symbian OS phones like the Sony Ericsson P800 and Nokia 7650, which Reqwireless WebViewer supports. Additionally, Reqwireless WebViewer works on phones such as the Motorola i85s, i95cl, Accompli 008, T720, V60i, Samsung SPH-A500, and RIM BlackBerry 5810.
(Disclaimer: I work for Reqwireless and wrote most of WebViewer. I'm kind of annoyed that Opera is acting as though they've done something new.)
Sun has a list of J2ME wireless devices.
There's no need to stop supporting Netscape 4.x. If you have problems with Netscape 4's CSS support, just hide the style sheet by using media="screen, not Netscape4" in your or tag. If you use HTML and CSS properly, then the resulting page should be perfectly accessible (though somewhat bland) in Netscape 4.
I'm a human with the ability to think and reason. Therefore, I can decide when something is wrong to me.
There can be something that is wrong to me but right to you. I don't expect everyone to share my morals.
I'm an individual capable of communication, and so I may (or may not) communicate my thoughts even if they go against your morality.
I can also consider in my brain why it's wrong.
I can justify in my mind why something is wrong. That is all the justification that I need.
There are many atheists in the world who don't need a god to give them morality. That some people use their religion for their moral system does not imply that religion is required for people to be moral.
Common fucking sense. People are perfectly capable of learning that physical pain hurts and that emotional pain hurts. People are perfectly capable of learning that giving love to someone is more rewarding than giving pain to someone.
No god is required for people to recognize that some things are good and some things are bad.
The hoops are for writing network-aware MIDlets. If your MIDlet is standalone, you can develop it and offer it to others without much trouble.
Unfortunately, MIDlets that use the networking API are more restricted at the moment. North American carriers only seem to allow non-developers to install network-aware MIDlets from the carriers' sites. In the case of Nextel, they require developers to go through expensive certification before they'll make your MIDlets available to general users.
The good news is that the rest of the world is more free. You can develop network-aware MIDlets and offer them to users of the Motorola Accompli 008 and Siemens SL45i. No hoops to jump through, just some uncertainty since these devices aren't available in North America so you can't really test on them (although there's a simulator for the SL45i).
Motorola i85s, i55sr, i90c, i50sx, i80s.
Yes, but They make you jump through hoops first.
Perhaps you'll change your mind when 95% of your email is spam. When that happens, it's too easy to accidentally delete legitimate email.
You do realize that not everyone here is American, don't you?