The two words are not descriptive. The word "to-do" actually is a misappropriation of the infinitive "to do" which is a form of the verb "do." One of the beautiful things about the English language is its corruptibility.
That's close, but modern screen-readers have the ability to associate such text with keywords that they can announce rather than the actual character. For example, the software wouldn't say that you saw a percent-sign. It might say "Food." for a lower-case d, it might say "canine monster." so that the user can know what he's seeing. Also, the software can ignore characters that are not important. One of the fundamental settings for such software is to ignore punctuation.
That's the part that bothers me about the idea. I'm not sure what other ideas might work, but I'd love to see some discussion of the problem. Few people like spammers and even my blind friends complain loudly about them and agree that the sties, including Slashdot, should be able to prevent them from gaining any advantages.
I occasionally have thought that they could use digital certificates (like those from Verisign, etc.) to authenticate themselves. I could be wrong, but I don't think that spammers would want to hassle with the large numbers of certificates that they would need for all of their bogus e-mail addresses.
<i>His blind friends shouldn't have to beg for someone to come over and help them when signing up for a new website.
By providing assistance, he wouldn't fix the problem- just perpetuate it. Sometimes providing a work around just helps the underlying problem survive and grow ever-larger.</I>
When I have offered to help, I received a response similar to what Minna Kirai posted. I also participated in a brief exchange of e-mail with Randall Swartz, who authored Ravaged by Robots to alert him to this problem. Many entities, including Slashdot and Yahoo!, have implemented this concept apparently without thought for its impact on blind people.
Blind people can participate in many areas of the world that once were closed to them. Unfortunately, places like Slashdot continue to erect barriers that a blind person cannot overcome. Have you attempted to register for an account on Slashdot recently? You'll notice a graphic of some letters that the system expects you to type in an edit-field. The graphic is completely inaccessible to a blind person.
I realize that this part of my message is off-topic, but I have several friends who are blind, who are quite adept at using their computers, and who would like to have accounts on Slashdot but who cannot register because they cannot see that graphic.
I also realize why the graphic is there, but I think that a system should prevent abuse while allowing its legitimate use.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it 20% of all people who got the email, or 20% of the people who opened the message and clicked on the link?
If you look long enough, you probably will find laws against almost anything that someone might wright. Is that a reason to outlaw writing?
I'm taking bets on how long we'll have to wait before we see Pong as a thrilling new attraction at local theaters.
The two words are not descriptive. The word "to-do" actually is a misappropriation of the infinitive "to do" which is a form of the verb "do." One of the beautiful things about the English language is its corruptibility.
A MUD, MUSH, or other similar world that relies entirely on text should be easily accessible by blind or deaf people.
That's close, but modern screen-readers have the ability to associate such text with keywords that they can announce rather than the actual character. For example, the software wouldn't say that you saw a percent-sign. It might say "Food." for a lower-case d, it might say "canine monster." so that the user can know what he's seeing. Also, the software can ignore characters that are not important. One of the fundamental settings for such software is to ignore punctuation.
"Yit" is "get." I posted this anonymously. Please don't deprive me of my precious Karma. :-P
That's the part that bothers me about the idea. I'm not sure what other ideas might work, but I'd love to see some discussion of the problem. Few people like spammers and even my blind friends complain loudly about them and agree that the sties, including Slashdot, should be able to prevent them from gaining any advantages.
I occasionally have thought that they could use digital certificates (like those from Verisign, etc.) to authenticate themselves. I could be wrong, but I don't think that spammers would want to hassle with the large numbers of certificates that they would need for all of their bogus e-mail addresses.
<i>His blind friends shouldn't have to beg for someone to come over and help them when signing up for a new website.
By providing assistance, he wouldn't fix the problem- just perpetuate it. Sometimes providing a work around just helps the underlying problem survive and grow ever-larger.</I>
When I have offered to help, I received a response similar to what Minna Kirai posted. I also participated in a brief exchange of e-mail with Randall Swartz, who authored Ravaged by Robots to alert him to this problem. Many entities, including Slashdot and Yahoo!, have implemented this concept apparently without thought for its impact on blind people.
Blind people can participate in many areas of the world that once were closed to them. Unfortunately, places like Slashdot continue to erect barriers that a blind person cannot overcome. Have you attempted to register for an account on Slashdot recently? You'll notice a graphic of some letters that the system expects you to type in an edit-field. The graphic is completely inaccessible to a blind person.
I realize that this part of my message is off-topic, but I have several friends who are blind, who are quite adept at using their computers, and who would like to have accounts on Slashdot but who cannot register because they cannot see that graphic.
I also realize why the graphic is there, but I think that a system should prevent abuse while allowing its legitimate use.