Has anyone noticed the new accessories that you can get for the iPOD!? Voice memo recorder? Photo Card reader/writer for the IPOD? This means you can empty your 512 mg card onto your 40 gig ipod and keep shooting...!! This is awesome and makes me want the new ipod badly (Still using the old 10 gig version).
OK, can someone please explain to me why everyone is so gungho about this browser. It's by Apple...and? Camino has had tabbed browsing before Safari was even realeased. And as far as speed is concerned, I really have no idea what everyone is talking about. On my machine (dual 867) Camino has outpaced Safari by at least three seconds on ten different sites I tested. Camino takes about one second longer to "cold-start." I'd really like to see how Apple got the statistics on their Safari page.
I just don't get it. Everyone gets so excited like Safari is the first web browser. It wasn't the first to have tabs and it really isn't faster (at least on my machine). What is the significance?
Re:This doesn't exclude the Web from courtesy
on
ADA Doesn't Apply to Web
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The web, and the world for that matter, should not be designed around the lowest common denominator.
I mean, I know everyone has their own opinions but I think it's pretty sad that moderators thought this guy was "insightful".
Lowest common denominator? How offensive. No, wait, you're right, making cockpits accessible to blind people and making DIGITAL websites accesible to blind people are the exact same thing. How insightful. Cause you know, we give blind people a driver's license today, don't we? Oh wait, we don't. The ADA is about making "REASONABLE" adjustments to make the lives of people who are disabled easier and more equivalent to the lives of the able-bodied.
The real problem here is that the web lacks standards. The WWW is supposed to fix that but apparently they hold no weight because neither Microsoft (who is a partner of the WWW), nor Netscape, nor Mozilla, or any other browser displays any page the same. So what good are following the WWW disability standards if the browsers aren't going to use them correctly. Regardless, there are some really basic things you can do to make your page more accessible -- none of which are as hard as making a fucking cockpit accessible to the blind. Remember, this is the DIGITAL WORLD. Every time I go to Slashdot I get a page completely customized just for me. No one had to rewrite all the code just for my lowest common denominator. So why is it so hard to include a couple alt tags, and think about the millions of people who visit your site without sight or hearing?
If you want to make a personal webpage, or do a crazy design: fine, do whatever the hell you want. But if your a company or an information source (Southwest is both of these) then you have the responsibility to make your site accessible to as many people as possible.
People who make stupid analogies are just like the Nazis.
Interestingly, none of these is based on a moral argument -- they are all sound reasons why it is in the interests of an organization to think about accessibility. For example, one of these sections mentions that people with disabilities in the U.S. are estimated to control a discretionary income of over $175 billion. Making a site accessible to these people gives it access to an additional market that non-accessible sites cannot tap.
This first chapter sets the tone for the whole book. It doesn't preach about accessibility for the sake of people with disabilities but rather seeks to convince the reader that accessibility is in their interests.
Actually I think it more relates to ETHICS -- as it is dealing with one's profession -- but all the same. All the analogies other people have posted about how unfair these laws are and "why don't they make magazine publishers publish their magazines in Braile or spoken-word" are completely missing the point. Using a digital medium such as the Internet, it is easy to make your website easily accessible for persons with disabilities. Is it too hard to use the use of both your hands to enter in a few extra tags so that the Internet is "accessible to all!" You Slashdotters spuge yourselves when you think of how cheap it would be to put together free or close to free Linux boxes and ship them down to South America, yet your "creative expression"? is being denied by having to put in a few extra tags explaining the purpose of a picture. Give me a break you capitalistic freaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone noticed the new accessories that you can get for the iPOD!? Voice memo recorder? Photo Card reader/writer for the IPOD? This means you can empty your 512 mg card onto your 40 gig ipod and keep shooting...!! This is awesome and makes me want the new ipod badly (Still using the old 10 gig version).
OK, can someone please explain to me why everyone is so gungho about this browser. It's by Apple...and? Camino has had tabbed browsing before Safari was even realeased. And as far as speed is concerned, I really have no idea what everyone is talking about. On my machine (dual 867) Camino has outpaced Safari by at least three seconds on ten different sites I tested. Camino takes about one second longer to "cold-start." I'd really like to see how Apple got the statistics on their Safari page. I just don't get it. Everyone gets so excited like Safari is the first web browser. It wasn't the first to have tabs and it really isn't faster (at least on my machine). What is the significance?
I mean, I know everyone has their own opinions but I think it's pretty sad that moderators thought this guy was "insightful".
Lowest common denominator? How offensive. No, wait, you're right, making cockpits accessible to blind people and making DIGITAL websites accesible to blind people are the exact same thing. How insightful. Cause you know, we give blind people a driver's license today, don't we? Oh wait, we don't. The ADA is about making "REASONABLE" adjustments to make the lives of people who are disabled easier and more equivalent to the lives of the able-bodied.
The real problem here is that the web lacks standards. The WWW is supposed to fix that but apparently they hold no weight because neither Microsoft (who is a partner of the WWW), nor Netscape, nor Mozilla, or any other browser displays any page the same. So what good are following the WWW disability standards if the browsers aren't going to use them correctly. Regardless, there are some really basic things you can do to make your page more accessible -- none of which are as hard as making a fucking cockpit accessible to the blind. Remember, this is the DIGITAL WORLD. Every time I go to Slashdot I get a page completely customized just for me. No one had to rewrite all the code just for my lowest common denominator. So why is it so hard to include a couple alt tags, and think about the millions of people who visit your site without sight or hearing?
If you want to make a personal webpage, or do a crazy design: fine, do whatever the hell you want. But if your a company or an information source (Southwest is both of these) then you have the responsibility to make your site accessible to as many people as possible.
People who make stupid analogies are just like the Nazis.
This first chapter sets the tone for the whole book. It doesn't preach about accessibility for the sake of people with disabilities but rather seeks to convince the reader that accessibility is in their interests.
Actually I think it more relates to ETHICS -- as it is dealing with one's profession -- but all the same. All the analogies other people have posted about how unfair these laws are and "why don't they make magazine publishers publish their magazines in Braile or spoken-word" are completely missing the point. Using a digital medium such as the Internet, it is easy to make your website easily accessible for persons with disabilities. Is it too hard to use the use of both your hands to enter in a few extra tags so that the Internet is "accessible to all!" You Slashdotters spuge yourselves when you think of how cheap it would be to put together free or close to free Linux boxes and ship them down to South America, yet your "creative expression"? is being denied by having to put in a few extra tags explaining the purpose of a picture. Give me a break you capitalistic freaks.