IPv6 support is not really any more complicated, at an application level, than IPv4 support. In fact the two can be unified using a common interface which is even defined in POSIX.1g. NAT does *not* "solve" the problem of diminished IP space, it simply makes it less immediately burdensome. NAT brings with it a set of unique new problems (like accepting inbound connections). Maybe you've had trouble with IPv6, but that does not mean that it is "inherently broken" or anything like that. IPv6 support on some systems no doubt lacks documentation, but the core technologies are for the most part sound, stable, and ready for prime time.
The key factor, I think, to lack of IPv6 rollout so far is missing support in routers and Windows. That will come, though.
Well you'd damn well better keep your kids away from such inflammable hazards as... er.. paper, and books. I mean, geez, they're sooo flammable.
Look here, if you expose something to flame then there's probably a decent chance it will burn. The lesson is not to "make everything fireproof," the lesson is to keep your damned kids from lighting stuff on fire! Sheesh.
Why can't you understand that just because you can convert the arithmetic value of a year's wages in China to US Dollars, it doesn't actually mean that it has the same *monetary* value?
Okay, but can you prove that companies like the MPAA/et al actually scale their prices for China? I'd be damn surprised if they did.
Until your favorite website's IP address changes. Then you're screwed. I mean you can always "find" an IP address, you just route to it.
At a hosting company for example, let's say they have two class Cs 1.2.3.0/24 and 4.5.6.0/24, now let's say the first one is used for webhosting and the second one is used for other company services. Okay, great, except they decide to restructure. Now www.knittingforoldladies.com used to be 1.2.3.4, and Granny bookmarked it and her browser oh-so-intelligently caches the IP. Except now the company restructures, and www.knittingforoldladies.com is now 4.5.6.7. 1.2.3.4 is now some other random customer website. Oh, crap, what happened to the knitting? Sure, the browser could check and note that the connection it has made does not respond for 'knittingforoldladies.com', but why even go that far? DNS is meant to provide access to a rapidly changeable hierarchial database of names which map to addresses. Doing bogus cacheing on the client end for any length of time is not sane.
Actually, my experiences with Australian immigrations lead me to believe that, on a policy level, Australia hates foreigners at least as much as the US, and maybe more.
You are correct there. However, to my knowledge at least it is not lawful for companies to exclude people who are disabled from doing business with them (within reason). That's why, for example, stores need to be wheelchair accessible and what-have-you. If Boeing wants to provide extra data or something not necessary to actually do business with them to only a specific group that is entirely their business. Perhaps I wasn't being very clear. This is about minimums, not maximums. I was simply saying that government sites and (some) businesses at least will need to comply, but not everyone who ever had a website.
Well of course they aren't disabled. The idea was to take a minority that was previously discriminated against and point out that it was flawed.
I'm not saying that being black makes you disabled, or vice versa, however it used to be acceptable to say "well such group doesn't NEED this to live, so screw them." I was just pointing out the ramifications of reducing people in a minority to only being able to access the bare minimums available because "they don't need it" even if it really is little or no trouble to provide access for them otherwise.
I understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to 'impose' anything on people per se. I will take the extra step to make things more useable for me. I'm saying that I would *prefer* to alter as little content as possible. I will alter as much as I need to to make things useful for me, though.
What I'm trying to get at is that specifying fonts in terms of "proportions of the default size" is just better design all up. You don't know what font-sizes are readable on *anybody's* devices (disabled or not) so it makes more sense to specify your fonts in terms of proportion than specific sizes. That is just plain good web design. If people followed plain good web design in this case the upshot would be that people such as myself would have just a little less trouble with the reading of pages, but would still be able to get as much of the visual message as possible.
I really don't want to trample anybody's design senses, and of course in the end it is up to the creator to decide what is best. I can see what you're saying, and I don't mean to come off as saying my needs are more important than others, I just happen to feel the font issue is one of good design (and more).
Then why do you let the html dictate what font's/fontsize you see?
Mostly because I'd like to preserve as much of the design as possible. I think that (at least on some sites;) people choose specific fonts for a good reason. I have in the past not allowed pages to use different fonts, but I would hate to be pushed back into that.
The simple fact of the matter is that since just about every site out there is "done for IE" people *know* what the default fontsizes in IE are. It is very uncommon for people to change their default fontsizes, and I think that when they do webpages should respect that simply because that does not violate POLA. It's not *just* for visually disabled people, those who want fonts bigger or smaller for whatever reason should be able to get them, and it doesn't take much to not hardcode your fontsizes.
I'm going to reply to bits and pieces of this, although it is an obvious troll, because I've heard this from people before and I'd like to dispel a few of the silly things that someone else might fall for.
Fuck you, you fucking asshole. How entitled do you feel? I do not feel 'entitled'. I do feel that it is not too much to ask that people respect my browser's font settings. I've heard the same thing from plenty of people who are *not* disabled.
Was Picasso told to make his paintings larger so that some genetic mistake could see them more easily? No, he was not. No, indeed he was not. However this is not a question of art (the laws at any rate are not). The question is one of useability in everyday places (such as business and government websites). You can do up your homepage however you like. If I find it horrid and unaccessible I will simply ignore it. However I think I should point out that nine times out of ten if I find a site unuseable most of my web-designer friends will concur. The "beauty" of websites is rarely seen in using tiny fonts.
When you mandate it by law, you take arts away from the artist and put it in the hands of government. I wholeheartedly agree and would not dare ask anyone actually creating artwork for the sake of art to modify their work for me (or anybody else). But this isn't about art for the sake of art, it's about websites which people need to use for ordinary things such as shopping or researching governmental regulations.
And furthermore, there is not a need for you to use the Internet. I'm sure that you receive disability checks and are quite taken care of by my tax dollars. Therefore your only need is that fat check. Once that comes you've got food, clothing, and shelter. The Internet is not a need and having porno stories read to you is not a need you fucking assgoblin. I think you will find that disabled people (such as myself) do *not* like being on disability. I'm not on disability, and I don't want to be. Those who I know that are on disability would much rather *not* be disabled and be able to do the things that others do (such as driving). Most people do not want to live on welfare.
I guess that the front of the bus is no good place for black people. I suppose that they don't NEED to be able to sit in the front of the bus. Black people certainly never needed the use of the facilities which others had and were not available to them. Don't think it's the same? I bet there are a lot of things available on the internet which are simply not available to people offline. I think everyone should have access to the *information* on the internet. Poor, rich, disabled, abled, whatever. The internet has a huge amount of promise for the world at large and making it useful to everybody seems very worthwhile.
Well most peoples' websites don't need to be changed. These laws are only for institutions offering public services. This isn't your blog, somebody's homepage, or anything like that. This is sites that everyone needs to access because they are pointed there in order to do business with a company, or work with a government agency.
I think a good compromise here would be what a lot of people did back when frames were all the rage. Simply offer a no-frills page for people who are disabled. You get to keep your flashy page for your regularly abled (hah) consumers, and those who need special access can get it.
Also, I don't personally use/need screen readers, what I do need is websites that do simple things like respect my need for larger fonts (that means flash is right out). A lot of websites don't do that, and until the last year or so I had to actually copy out the text I needed to read and paste it into something else. Now mozilla at least does text enlarging which makes my life a hell of a lot easier.
When I picked up this book, accessibility was an area that interested me but I am now convinced that it should be in the thoughts of every web developer. Some of the laws that are emerging to regulate accessibility look positively scary and there are lots of other good reasons to take accessibility seriously.
As a disabled person I hope people take accessibility seriously because there are disabled people who need or wish to use the internet as well. I have a permanent visual impairment and one of the worst things is websites that force a tiny font on you instead of respecting your browser's settings for what *you* need the fonts to be sized as. I really hope that people would design ther websites in such a way that both disabled and non-disabled can use them easily, and I know this is totally possible, and doesn't even require any great sacrifice on the part of the designer in having a nice looking site. Unfortunately, of course, I suppose most people won't bother until it becomes a legal requirement. Still it would be nice if they did...
Kind of like that crappy Vin Diesel movie which, afaik, was not about hardcore sex but about selling Mr. Fast and Furious to anyone stupid enough to pay $8 to see him in another movie?
Come on. 'XXX' in a title or phrase doesn't prove it's intended to be all about hardcore sex.
The danger is that eventually these licenses will say things like - "If you use this product, even if forced to by some PHB (eg MS Windows) as part of your employment, you may not ever work on a competing product". If they can't compete technically or economically, powerful vendors will start thinking about this sort of thing without a doubt.
I wonder at the legality of this. I personally would want to see this tested in a court before people start letting EULAs claim their firstborn. EULAs are definitely getting ridiculous, but hopefully at some point one will be challenged and some reasonable restrictions will be set.
Slashdot Mirror
What about space pirates? :(
IPv6 support is not really any more complicated, at an application level, than IPv4 support. In fact the two can be unified using a common interface which is even defined in POSIX.1g. NAT does *not* "solve" the problem of diminished IP space, it simply makes it less immediately burdensome. NAT brings with it a set of unique new problems (like accepting inbound connections). Maybe you've had trouble with IPv6, but that does not mean that it is "inherently broken" or anything like that. IPv6 support on some systems no doubt lacks documentation, but the core technologies are for the most part sound, stable, and ready for prime time.
:)
The key factor, I think, to lack of IPv6 rollout so far is missing support in routers and Windows. That will come, though.
Of course, IHBT perhaps.
Well you'd damn well better keep your kids away from such inflammable hazards as ... er.. paper, and books. I mean, geez, they're sooo flammable.
Look here, if you expose something to flame then there's probably a decent chance it will burn. The lesson is not to "make everything fireproof," the lesson is to keep your damned kids from lighting stuff on fire! Sheesh.
try multimedia/mplayer. :)
they did? Are you sure? :)
How about the editors just read the damn stories on the front page?
Instead of astrophysics work they should use it to find all their radioactive trees.
Every night at about 1am I embrace myself, and I definitely extend. I never knew Microsoft felt so good!
Your pants were buggy before the ants showed up though.
one.
more.
time!
yaaay!
well, this is it. the first post I dreamed of. yay.
Why can't you understand that just because you can convert the arithmetic value of a year's wages in China to US Dollars, it doesn't actually mean that it has the same *monetary* value?
Okay, but can you prove that companies like the MPAA/et al actually scale their prices for China? I'd be damn surprised if they did.
Until your favorite website's IP address changes. Then you're screwed. I mean you can always "find" an IP address, you just route to it.
At a hosting company for example, let's say they have two class Cs 1.2.3.0/24 and 4.5.6.0/24, now let's say the first one is used for webhosting and the second one is used for other company services. Okay, great, except they decide to restructure. Now www.knittingforoldladies.com used to be 1.2.3.4, and Granny bookmarked it and her browser oh-so-intelligently caches the IP. Except now the company restructures, and www.knittingforoldladies.com is now 4.5.6.7. 1.2.3.4 is now some other random customer website. Oh, crap, what happened to the knitting? Sure, the browser could check and note that the connection it has made does not respond for 'knittingforoldladies.com', but why even go that far? DNS is meant to provide access to a rapidly changeable hierarchial database of names which map to addresses. Doing bogus cacheing on the client end for any length of time is not sane.
Actually, my experiences with Australian immigrations lead me to believe that, on a policy level, Australia hates foreigners at least as much as the US, and maybe more.
You are correct there. However, to my knowledge at least it is not lawful for companies to exclude people who are disabled from doing business with them (within reason). That's why, for example, stores need to be wheelchair accessible and what-have-you. If Boeing wants to provide extra data or something not necessary to actually do business with them to only a specific group that is entirely their business. Perhaps I wasn't being very clear. This is about minimums, not maximums. I was simply saying that government sites and (some) businesses at least will need to comply, but not everyone who ever had a website.
Well of course they aren't disabled. The idea was to take a minority that was previously discriminated against and point out that it was flawed.
I'm not saying that being black makes you disabled, or vice versa, however it used to be acceptable to say "well such group doesn't NEED this to live, so screw them." I was just pointing out the ramifications of reducing people in a minority to only being able to access the bare minimums available because "they don't need it" even if it really is little or no trouble to provide access for them otherwise.
I understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to 'impose' anything on people per se. I will take the extra step to make things more useable for me. I'm saying that I would *prefer* to alter as little content as possible. I will alter as much as I need to to make things useful for me, though.
What I'm trying to get at is that specifying fonts in terms of "proportions of the default size" is just better design all up. You don't know what font-sizes are readable on *anybody's* devices (disabled or not) so it makes more sense to specify your fonts in terms of proportion than specific sizes. That is just plain good web design. If people followed plain good web design in this case the upshot would be that people such as myself would have just a little less trouble with the reading of pages, but would still be able to get as much of the visual message as possible.
I really don't want to trample anybody's design senses, and of course in the end it is up to the creator to decide what is best. I can see what you're saying, and I don't mean to come off as saying my needs are more important than others, I just happen to feel the font issue is one of good design (and more).
Yes! I just found it in my copy of Mozilla. How long has it been there? I never noticed it before. :/
:) That should be extremely helpful.
Thank you very much.
Then why do you let the html dictate what font's/fontsize you see?
;) people choose specific fonts for a good reason. I have in the past not allowed pages to use different fonts, but I would hate to be pushed back into that.
Mostly because I'd like to preserve as much of the design as possible. I think that (at least on some sites
The simple fact of the matter is that since just about every site out there is "done for IE" people *know* what the default fontsizes in IE are. It is very uncommon for people to change their default fontsizes, and I think that when they do webpages should respect that simply because that does not violate POLA. It's not *just* for visually disabled people, those who want fonts bigger or smaller for whatever reason should be able to get them, and it doesn't take much to not hardcode your fontsizes.
I'm going to reply to bits and pieces of this, although it is an obvious troll, because I've heard this from people before and I'd like to dispel a few of the silly things that someone else might fall for.
Fuck you, you fucking asshole. How entitled do you feel?
I do not feel 'entitled'. I do feel that it is not too much to ask that people respect my browser's font settings. I've heard the same thing from plenty of people who are *not* disabled.
Was Picasso told to make his paintings larger so that some genetic mistake could see them more easily? No, he was not.
No, indeed he was not. However this is not a question of art (the laws at any rate are not). The question is one of useability in everyday places (such as business and government websites). You can do up your homepage however you like. If I find it horrid and unaccessible I will simply ignore it. However I think I should point out that nine times out of ten if I find a site unuseable most of my web-designer friends will concur. The "beauty" of websites is rarely seen in using tiny fonts.
When you mandate it by law, you take arts away from the artist and put it in the hands of government.
I wholeheartedly agree and would not dare ask anyone actually creating artwork for the sake of art to modify their work for me (or anybody else). But this isn't about art for the sake of art, it's about websites which people need to use for ordinary things such as shopping or researching governmental regulations.
And furthermore, there is not a need for you to use the Internet. I'm sure that you receive disability checks and are quite taken care of by my tax dollars. Therefore your only need is that fat check. Once that comes you've got food, clothing, and shelter. The Internet is not a need and having porno stories read to you is not a need you fucking assgoblin.
I think you will find that disabled people (such as myself) do *not* like being on disability. I'm not on disability, and I don't want to be. Those who I know that are on disability would much rather *not* be disabled and be able to do the things that others do (such as driving). Most people do not want to live on welfare.
I guess that the front of the bus is no good place for black people. I suppose that they don't NEED to be able to sit in the front of the bus. Black people certainly never needed the use of the facilities which others had and were not available to them. Don't think it's the same? I bet there are a lot of things available on the internet which are simply not available to people offline. I think everyone should have access to the *information* on the internet. Poor, rich, disabled, abled, whatever. The internet has a huge amount of promise for the world at large and making it useful to everybody seems very worthwhile.
Well most peoples' websites don't need to be changed. These laws are only for institutions offering public services. This isn't your blog, somebody's homepage, or anything like that. This is sites that everyone needs to access because they are pointed there in order to do business with a company, or work with a government agency.
I think a good compromise here would be what a lot of people did back when frames were all the rage. Simply offer a no-frills page for people who are disabled. You get to keep your flashy page for your regularly abled (hah) consumers, and those who need special access can get it.
Also, I don't personally use/need screen readers, what I do need is websites that do simple things like respect my need for larger fonts (that means flash is right out). A lot of websites don't do that, and until the last year or so I had to actually copy out the text I needed to read and paste it into something else. Now mozilla at least does text enlarging which makes my life a hell of a lot easier.
When I picked up this book, accessibility was an area that interested me but I am now convinced that it should be in the thoughts of every web developer. Some of the laws that are emerging to regulate accessibility look positively scary and there are lots of other good reasons to take accessibility seriously.
As a disabled person I hope people take accessibility seriously because there are disabled people who need or wish to use the internet as well. I have a permanent visual impairment and one of the worst things is websites that force a tiny font on you instead of respecting your browser's settings for what *you* need the fonts to be sized as. I really hope that people would design ther websites in such a way that both disabled and non-disabled can use them easily, and I know this is totally possible, and doesn't even require any great sacrifice on the part of the designer in having a nice looking site. Unfortunately, of course, I suppose most people won't bother until it becomes a legal requirement. Still it would be nice if they did...
XXX is in the damn title!
Kind of like that crappy Vin Diesel movie which, afaik, was not about hardcore sex but about selling Mr. Fast and Furious to anyone stupid enough to pay $8 to see him in another movie?
Come on. 'XXX' in a title or phrase doesn't prove it's intended to be all about hardcore sex.
The danger is that eventually these licenses will say things like - "If you use this product, even if forced to by some PHB (eg MS Windows) as part of your employment, you may not ever work on a competing product". If they can't compete technically or economically, powerful vendors will start thinking about this sort of thing without a doubt.
I wonder at the legality of this. I personally would want to see this tested in a court before people start letting EULAs claim their firstborn. EULAs are definitely getting ridiculous, but hopefully at some point one will be challenged and some reasonable restrictions will be set.
Hitler was also once on a crusade. So was Stalin, so were the Knights Templars, so is George W. Bush for that matter. Your point again? Idiot.
I hereby call attention to Godwin's Law and ask that the editors stop all commenting on this story.
Good night.