No, that's not really how that works. Polls and scientific observations are generally based on collecting data under specified conditions that meet certain standards (with respect to polls, that includes efforts to randomly select participants, systematically asking exactly the same questions to different people, etc.). Anecdotes are subject to massive amounts of bias due to the fact that such controls are not in place, which is why collecting a bunch of anecdotes isn't the same as running a poll or survey or a set of structured interviews.
For me, problem #1 causes issues when downloading mailboxes/folders outside of Thunderbird in mbox format and then copying them into Thunderbird. The only solution I've found is going through imported folders to figure out which messages had problems (which requires checking against the original, uncorrupted messages), then downloading those individually and importing them (Thunderbird figures out what to do if you copy a single message in).
Problem #2 can be solved by unchecking all of the server-checking options, and then setting the mail server to 127.0.0.1.
Avoiding bugs and following usability best practices is all well and good, but if you never put your product in front of a user, you'll never know what a user thinks about it.
If Canonical wants Ubuntu's user base to grow substantially, they need to integrate usability testing into its design cycle. That's not the only thing that matters, but there's just no way to beat Microsoft or Apple's software without improving the user experience.
...and AA compliance is really not difficult, unless you ignore accessibility until after you've finished designing a site.
So what you're saying is that compliance will be difficult for any site that was designed before the new rules (which will come out in a year or two) go into effect.
You can't ignore what doesn't currently exist, you can only ignore it after it exists.
If any of the sites I run falls under these requirements, they will probably have to come down, since I don't have time to go back and redo everything that has already been done. That means that people who can't currently get to my content still won't be able to, and those who can will lose it. That sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
WCAG 2.0 has been out for two years. The revision to Section 508 will be based on it.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
The problem it the programes the read websites AKA JAWS plane out suck. The amount of extra code needed is a pain. Get Jaws to work and we are fine
Very little extra code is needed, unless you're referring to ARIA, which is necessary because rich content is extremely nonstandard. As a result, there's no way for assistive technologies to know what does what without a bit of extra code to make it clear.
...but I don't think most businesses (or most people, generally) have anything to object to here. What's likely to make people anxious about changes to the ADA is uncertainty over what those changes will involve.
As a web developer, my main concern is just knowing what I'll have to do or do differently. It would be helpful if articles like this -- or their summaries -- provided links to the proposed guidelines. Personally, I'd prefer to get a head start on this so that my clients and I don't end up rushing to implement changes as the last moment.
Here you go: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
WCAG 2.0 is what the upcoming revision to Section 508 is being based on.
That it takes a LOOOOOOOOOT more than a few alt tags, standard compliant markup and Flash that can be screen scraped to be ADA compliant. Its a freagin nightmare, and a lot of people who think they are compliant, are not, unless their web site is EXTREMELY simple.
For all practical purpose, its impossible to ACTUALLY be compliant. They're just a bit soft over it...
No, it isn't. We're effectively talking about WCAG 2.0 here (the revision to Section 508 that should come out in a year or two is being based on it), and AA compliance is really not difficult, unless you ignore accessibility until after you've finished designing a site. A little forethought and it's easy as pie.
Where I went to vote, anyone who wished had the option of bringing an assistant. I recall doing this for my grandmother when her health was failing. She couldn't see well enough to read the ballot much less fill in a circle. So, I would read the ballot to her, and she would tell me what to mark.
I'm all for throwing money at math and CS (it keeps me employed), but I still think that E-voting is unnecessary. Just use paper. With paper, the ballots can be recounted in front of a group of representative for each side whenever there is a dispute. It's simple and crystal clear to the vast majority of voters. The only disadvantage is that it's slow, but so what? Voting is important, we can afford to slow down a little and do it carefully.
So people with disabilities do not have the right to an anonymous vote, but you do? What about people who don't have a friend or relative to bring with them? Should they just trust whoever volunteers to help them, even though they have no way to verify whether or not they're voting correctly on their behalf?
Agreed, E-voting is the classic solution in search of a problem.
Unless you have a disability, in which case it is the classic "solution to a problem".
GP: "marking a circle with a pen" is impossible for someone who is blind or has dexterity issues. Whether or not e-voting would currently benefit other people is irrelevant; it is needed, and that need is growing.
Why would you go to jail? First off, you're returning government property. It could be argued that doing anything else would get you put in jail. Second, who said to put your name and return address on it?
Or drop it off at the police station or mail it to the FBI. An unmarked box containing electronics that sends out transmissions? They'll get the bomb squad to deal with it. Then it ends up on the news, and people will actually hear about it.
So what happens when they update the imagery or the map (streets do change, you know)?
Also, this is clearly not usable for many people with disabilities (requires good eyesight, good coordination, a steady hand, good memory, etc.).
while eye tracking is amazing when it comes to making very fast gross movements it falls apart when it comes to fine movements
Eye trackers have been tracking fine movements for decades. In the last 5-10 years, the equipment has gotten smaller, faster, and easier to use. The problem isn't the tracking, it's the eyes. Your eyes jump around approximately 3-4 times per second, and they don't always go where you think they do. Due to the way the visual system works, the mouse/cursor would just jump around the screen every few hundred milliseconds, and would serve as more of a distraction than an aide. Very minor calibration issues also cause problems if the mouse/cursor is displayed in real time; being off even a few pixels (which is pretty much guaranteed) results in the user "following" the cursor around on the screen.
There are already a bunch of options for people who can't use their hands to play video games (assuming you meant quadriplegics).
First result in Google provides a decent list: http://www.oneswitch.org.uk/1/AGS/AGS-head.htm
That would promake you very dizzy, would require far more effort than using your hands, and would be likely to cause neck injuries. I don't see much future in this, as mouth controls already exist for people who don't have the use of their hands to play video games. It was a great project for students to learn, but it's unlikely to have any practical use outside the lab.
It means "an attack carried out using the Internet that is as devastating to the US as the attacks on 9/11," duh.
Are terrorists going to fly a plane into internet tubes and clog them?!
Denial of service attacks exist, yes.
So, to avoid having the service of a particular website or network denied by a targeted DoS attack, the government will deny service to the entire Internet? To use the original analogy, isn't that like demolishing a city to stop a few building from being destroyed?
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's not really how that works. Polls and scientific observations are generally based on collecting data under specified conditions that meet certain standards (with respect to polls, that includes efforts to randomly select participants, systematically asking exactly the same questions to different people, etc.). Anecdotes are subject to massive amounts of bias due to the fact that such controls are not in place, which is why collecting a bunch of anecdotes isn't the same as running a poll or survey or a set of structured interviews.
Give System76 a try; they make very nice Ubuntu laptops. For those (like me) that run Linux Mint, they're perfect (no hardware issues, etc.).
Niantic, the creators, are an Alphabet company. They already have your info.
They *were* an Alphabet company. They were spun off in 2015.
That's not what "ban the box" is about. Here, I'll let Wikipedia explain it to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
FYI, if you're using Chrome, Firefox, or Opera, you can't get anything higher than 720p (https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742).
For me, problem #1 causes issues when downloading mailboxes/folders outside of Thunderbird in mbox format and then copying them into Thunderbird. The only solution I've found is going through imported folders to figure out which messages had problems (which requires checking against the original, uncorrupted messages), then downloading those individually and importing them (Thunderbird figures out what to do if you copy a single message in).
Problem #2 can be solved by unchecking all of the server-checking options, and then setting the mail server to 127.0.0.1.
If thery're doing this to copyrighted works, aren't they violating the copyright by making an unauthorized modifications and then distributing it?
Avoiding bugs and following usability best practices is all well and good, but if you never put your product in front of a user, you'll never know what a user thinks about it.
If Canonical wants Ubuntu's user base to grow substantially, they need to integrate usability testing into its design cycle. That's not the only thing that matters, but there's just no way to beat Microsoft or Apple's software without improving the user experience.
So what you're saying is that compliance will be difficult for any site that was designed before the new rules (which will come out in a year or two) go into effect.
You can't ignore what doesn't currently exist, you can only ignore it after it exists.
If any of the sites I run falls under these requirements, they will probably have to come down, since I don't have time to go back and redo everything that has already been done. That means that people who can't currently get to my content still won't be able to, and those who can will lose it. That sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
WCAG 2.0 has been out for two years. The revision to Section 508 will be based on it. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
The problem it the programes the read websites AKA JAWS plane out suck. The amount of extra code needed is a pain. Get Jaws to work and we are fine
Very little extra code is needed, unless you're referring to ARIA, which is necessary because rich content is extremely nonstandard. As a result, there's no way for assistive technologies to know what does what without a bit of extra code to make it clear.
...but I don't think most businesses (or most people, generally) have anything to object to here. What's likely to make people anxious about changes to the ADA is uncertainty over what those changes will involve.
As a web developer, my main concern is just knowing what I'll have to do or do differently. It would be helpful if articles like this -- or their summaries -- provided links to the proposed guidelines. Personally, I'd prefer to get a head start on this so that my clients and I don't end up rushing to implement changes as the last moment.
Here you go: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ WCAG 2.0 is what the upcoming revision to Section 508 is being based on.
That it takes a LOOOOOOOOOT more than a few alt tags, standard compliant markup and Flash that can be screen scraped to be ADA compliant. Its a freagin nightmare, and a lot of people who think they are compliant, are not, unless their web site is EXTREMELY simple.
For all practical purpose, its impossible to ACTUALLY be compliant. They're just a bit soft over it...
No, it isn't. We're effectively talking about WCAG 2.0 here (the revision to Section 508 that should come out in a year or two is being based on it), and AA compliance is really not difficult, unless you ignore accessibility until after you've finished designing a site. A little forethought and it's easy as pie.
Please tell me - do we get ANYTHING out of e-voting apart from a time saving between closing the polling stations and declaring the result?
People with disabilities can vote privately and securely, like everyone else.
Where I went to vote, anyone who wished had the option of bringing an assistant. I recall doing this for my grandmother when her health was failing. She couldn't see well enough to read the ballot much less fill in a circle. So, I would read the ballot to her, and she would tell me what to mark.
I'm all for throwing money at math and CS (it keeps me employed), but I still think that E-voting is unnecessary. Just use paper. With paper, the ballots can be recounted in front of a group of representative for each side whenever there is a dispute. It's simple and crystal clear to the vast majority of voters. The only disadvantage is that it's slow, but so what? Voting is important, we can afford to slow down a little and do it carefully.
So people with disabilities do not have the right to an anonymous vote, but you do? What about people who don't have a friend or relative to bring with them? Should they just trust whoever volunteers to help them, even though they have no way to verify whether or not they're voting correctly on their behalf?
Agreed, E-voting is the classic solution in search of a problem.
Unless you have a disability, in which case it is the classic "solution to a problem". GP: "marking a circle with a pen" is impossible for someone who is blind or has dexterity issues. Whether or not e-voting would currently benefit other people is irrelevant; it is needed, and that need is growing.
Why would you go to jail? First off, you're returning government property. It could be argued that doing anything else would get you put in jail. Second, who said to put your name and return address on it?
Or drop it off at the police station or mail it to the FBI. An unmarked box containing electronics that sends out transmissions? They'll get the bomb squad to deal with it. Then it ends up on the news, and people will actually hear about it.
So what happens when they update the imagery or the map (streets do change, you know)? Also, this is clearly not usable for many people with disabilities (requires good eyesight, good coordination, a steady hand, good memory, etc.).
while eye tracking is amazing when it comes to making very fast gross movements it falls apart when it comes to fine movements
Eye trackers have been tracking fine movements for decades. In the last 5-10 years, the equipment has gotten smaller, faster, and easier to use. The problem isn't the tracking, it's the eyes. Your eyes jump around approximately 3-4 times per second, and they don't always go where you think they do. Due to the way the visual system works, the mouse/cursor would just jump around the screen every few hundred milliseconds, and would serve as more of a distraction than an aide. Very minor calibration issues also cause problems if the mouse/cursor is displayed in real time; being off even a few pixels (which is pretty much guaranteed) results in the user "following" the cursor around on the screen.
There are already a bunch of options for people who can't use their hands to play video games (assuming you meant quadriplegics). First result in Google provides a decent list: http://www.oneswitch.org.uk/1/AGS/AGS-head.htm
That would promake you very dizzy, would require far more effort than using your hands, and would be likely to cause neck injuries. I don't see much future in this, as mouth controls already exist for people who don't have the use of their hands to play video games. It was a great project for students to learn, but it's unlikely to have any practical use outside the lab.
It means "an attack carried out using the Internet that is as devastating to the US as the attacks on 9/11," duh.
Denial of service attacks exist, yes.
So, to avoid having the service of a particular website or network denied by a targeted DoS attack, the government will deny service to the entire Internet? To use the original analogy, isn't that like demolishing a city to stop a few building from being destroyed?
Farewell Athens/Acropolis.
Fools.