Actually, that's also one of the major reasons I use VI, people at work assume mono text must relate to programming in some fashion. It's also useful when trying to view code on sites that block it from your browser and disable right-click (though disabling JS lets you right-click too)
Ladies, if you are worried about indecent individuals who are now legally able to look up your skirt you now have a solution. Simply purchase a pen-laser, a little duct tape, and attach it to your underwear aiming at a downward angle. Any potential peepers will end up with a bad case of the blinks and hopefully very unpleasant itch for awhile. Camera will be blanked out.
Actually, I originally meant this to be somewhat humourous, but I wouldn't be surprised if I see these in the next lingerie magazine.
Not that I, um, read lingerie magazines or anything... they're my girlfriend's... - phorm
I believe that this one was actually covered in readers digest. A list of people with similar laser-caused issues included somebody whose eyes were continually hemorraging and bleeding. I wonder if the currently public-available lasers could cause similar damage. Perhaps not pen-lasers, but the long-range ones available in geek shops probably could
Actually,when pen-lasers they were a fad, idiot kids were kicked out for lazing the goalies etc in hockey games. Even a shot in the eyes with one of these little gadgets seemed to cause lasting problems throughout the game, though even the momentary distraction should warrant kicking people out of sporting events.
I hope you mean excessive speed. Idiots going 100 in a 50 zone, etc. A guy who does 15 over (Canada, so km not miles) doesn't deserve a $1000 ticket. 6:30am every weekday I drive to work for 100km of lonely highway. I take about 130/140km because there the road is highly visible and traffic is nil (if there are cars in my area, I slow down and watch my six).
On high-traffic times (on the way back), I've run into many nutcases that have nearly killed me. Tailgaters a meter from my bumper, etc, one guy who pass me on a DOUBLE-SOLID line (when there was a free lane on the right, no less).
Point, the only person I'm ever likely to hurt is myself, mainly if I hit a deer or something, and past 100km it's going to be a big dent regardless. I've driven past a lot of accidents, and I'll say for certain that speed was definately not the only factor, if a factor at all.
Police happily bag speeders and get cash, but they dangerous drivers are often the ones overlooked. Some guy driving like a maniac at 100 is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a conscientious driver at 130 (on even highway).
Personally, I think the cops could get more money and make the street safer if they left the speeding tickets to those who are driving excessive, and went after the dangerous (bumper-to-ass tailgaters, etc) drivers instead.
landlines aren't as bad as mobiles
How's that? Whenever somebody moves between local districts here they change their landlines. My friends with cells have generally kept their numbers, so long as they're in the general area.
Cells here tend to have a greater spectrum than land-lines and can often encompass 2-3 cities. The only time a local cellular should really change is if the person switches carriers.
One thing to ask is, how much do these suckers weigh, and how big are they? If they're huge and huge they're not going to embraced by laptop users. The PDF file has a picture of a fuel cell (p8) that's the length of laptop. Some laptops still use big ones like that but many have made more compact batteries. Another page shows an external-type cell (p14), which might be nice for airlines, etc, but at the size given isn't anything hugely innovative.
The article also states that they power laptops 2-3 times longer than standard batteries. So what's standard? Between different laptops, and depending on activity, there can be a significant difference how long batteries last. A hard estimate of how long they last under normal conditions (no CD's etc running all the time) would be a lot nicer. Call me suspicious but they also say 2-3 times longer than standard batties. My laptop doesn't run very long at all on a few AA's (insert smiles here).
Lastly, just a poke at the article because I hate lazy editors:
also -notebook comptuers- it would be nice if the reporter could spell
So life is based on certain cells being able to die and be replaced, and others lasting somewhat of a longer time. Is the problem that the long-living cells eventually die off, or that other cells stop/slow their multiplication process or both.
I suppose in the cases of people who don't die of outside caused, death would generally be caused by heart failure? Interestingly enough, I've not heard of tumours growing in hearts, or of people having dying of heart cancer, but perhaps it happens and I just haven't heard of it. The heart would probably be a good place to start though, trying to keep it from degenerating too much in later years.
In an additional note, it might be noted that many of the creatures that live the longest are also not overly prolific. If we were to mess with our genes so we lived longer, we might disable the human ability as far as bearing many offspring.
Isn't cancer caused by cells multiplying too rapidly? Is an issue of exponential growth, where they just keep multiplying and old ones don't die off? If we could make periodic adjustments to the way cells replicate perhaps this would work? I assume that at some point all the cells start slowing down the split process. If we could periodically change that point to equalize between cancer and failure, might we live longer?
I've also heard that hair/nails can still grow for some time after death? I suppose those cells keep on going. Creepy
Re:Small job, big job (Re:It's a different world)
on
Honest Job Sites?
·
· Score: 1
There was a sig quote that I kept seeing here on Slashdot that seemed to fit quite well for many of these situations, I can't remember the exact phrasing:
A job you enjoy, that pays well, that's legal. Pick two.
Somebody's going to kill me for mangling that sig - phorm
If Slashdot stopped posting every form of content that somebody whined about... there wouldn't be any content. I'd rather listen to an article that may be biased than sombody bitching about an article that may be biased. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
If not for slashdot, I would never have heard of many things I now find useful today, despite the bitching of some people about the posts.
How far exactly does this planetoid come from earth? I suppose if they just noticed it them it's probably nearer to earth lately?
Hopefully we'll be able to get a decent peek at it now via satellite/telescope. I wonder if they'll be able to get some satellites near enough to take a good look during my lifetime.
All your old schoolbooks just became useless - phorm
If doubling the cost of creating a website is your idea of "smart".
Flash is often the expensive part, especially in reference to time-consumption. Throwing a nice HTML layout to get things started would be smart in general. If somebody really wants to add flash, then it should be an addition but not replacement to HTML.
Scripting is a nice way to keep things updated, so the flash page and the HTML page can learn to get along with each other nicely.
What's the point of accessible Flash if all you are going to do with it is piss off visitors?
Because on some sites the presentation effect does look nicer in HTML. Sites used to promote multimedia (games, etc) often use multimedia for that promotion. Again, flash isn't for every site (it's often an overused bandwagon), and it's not good as the only method of presentation, but it does have places where it is an improvement over semi-static HTML.
Looking at this site,however, the case is likely about ugly JavaScripts and missing ALT tags. They probably had a crappy web-developer (or an office person who just filled the role) who didn't know much about standardization and visited JavaScript sample sites too often.
Of course. In cases of law involving death, negligence is often just as damning as an actual attempt. Unless it's gross negligence, the penalties are often less severe though. I suppose that it's bad enough that many people are idiots that we don't need to make hardened criminals of them as well:-)
In this case, I'd hope it would move more towards getting the site made properly accessible (and hopefully prompts others to do so as well), than awarding the plaintiff with a huge wad of cash. Cases of "sue-because-you-didn't-do" should be resolved this way. The cost of legal fees and a little to make up for the plaintiff's time and frustration probably wouldn't hurt though, and would help push the message out.
When computers, first became widely available to the public, there were a lot fewer governing laws and regulations. The also applies to the internet in its initial stages.
Nowadays, it seems that one can't do anything with a PC without a bunch of rules, regulations, or disclaimers. While it's understandable that many companies wish to protect their products, and also protect themselves from lawsuits, it seems that today freedom in IT is becoming increasingly narrow.
What do you think the future of the internet is, in a legal and freedoms sense? Will it continue to become a medium for free expression (quite strongly accented by sites such as here, slashdot), or will insane lawsuits and regulations put to much fear into using the freedoms which are so easily stepped on today.
As the world integrates IT more and more into our lives, what will happen with it as a medium of freedom Vs one of restriction. Will we still be able to speak our minds online, or will we live under the chains of lawsuits, speed governers, and surveillance devices.
Technology is a wonderful medium for crossing new boundries, but often it seems to also be used to impose new ones. Which usage for technology do you see being stronger in the future: the wings or the chains, and how would you see each being applied?
Thank you for saying this without making your reply into a flame. Most other reply-posts were blowing torches out their backsides by now.
Alt-tags are good. All flash is bad. JavaScript-required is bad. My linux machine doesn't have a GUI, it uses lynx (well, links), and it really annoys me when I can't view sites (so I definately sympathise with the blind). Text should be available for all the reasons you've mentioned and more. As long as this isn't a money grab, I support the concept of the suit, I just think that lawsuits are a crazy way to make this point. The isn't a monentary amount being mentioned here, so I can't really say whether it's a cash grab (also has to be a certain amount to be noticed), but if you read some of my comments posted since this one, you'll see my reasons why lawsuits are bad.
And, I'm hoping you'll agree, strongly graphical sites definately do have a place. If I'm visiting a gaming site, it makes me very happy to see flash and lots of graphics (except in the news section, etc).
These all strike me as "active attempts to disallow entry" - the only question is whether it is negligence or ignorance.
Negligence or ignorance does not indicate attempt. It generally indicates lack of attempt.
attempt : to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect (attempted to swim the swollen river) [m-w.com]
Oh, and again, the above are perfect examples of crap websites and the way things should not be (but often are). They don't indicate a attempt to disallow users but rather just (as above) ignorance.
Considering more books are sold today than before the advent of television, the obvious answer is YES.
Apples, Oranges? How is text-based internet support related to books, other than the fact that both contain literary material? Books are not the internet, nor are the two mutually exclusive) and internet is still an evolving medium. The internet may in fact become the successor to TV though, but that's something different again.
Oh, and books are a *wonderful* example of something that's always blind accessible. There are audiobooks and perhaps brailbooks, but I'd expect the selection to be somewhat less than what I find on a shelf in Chapters' written section.
One of us may be tasting toes right now? My breath still seems minty - phorm
The "special provisions" that designers usually make are not to enhance accessability, but to reduce it
Really, you have proof of this, or perhaps saw it on X-files? I thought they were an attempt to make the sites more enticing or graphically pleasing.
I suppose these companies are intentionally aiming to shut out the blind.
Don't confuse affect with intent. And when you post, click "preview", re-read your comment, see where it scores on the I-am-not-a-troll-'o'meter, and then perhaps hit Submit.
I try to be nice, but some people have a fantasical ability for idiocy that overcomes me - phorm
He who snips comments from another's article without including full context...
I didn't say that this is the way things SHOULD be, I said it's the way things are going. And while your PDA or cellphone can't at this time handle the graphical content in all of it's super-flashy often-crapulant glory, they are becoming increasingly capable. A while back most cellphones didn't have *any* graphic support. Now the bloody things are coming out with colour (shudders).
Rethink my arguements? Perhaps you should re-read them. I'm stating what IS happening, not what I think it should be. I happen to enjoy being able to read articles via lynx/links.
Points:
Companies want to do what costs them the least money. Adding blind-friendly content on top of the graphic hoopla costs more time
A counterarguement will likely cost them more. Yes, true, quite possibly true. However, have you ever heard of this law or these standards before?
How many web-developers do you know. Ask them if they've heard of this law. Also also them if they use alt tags (probably no, this is due to poor education or laziness). In this and many cases, it's an act of omission through ignorance, not through intent. This court case will probably make the law more visible, and that's likely part of the intent.
As for the law itself, I'm not sure on the specifics. If it applies to corporate sites only and takes heed of target audience, it's fine by me. If it's like a lot of crappy laws, it will be made too broad and can be made to apply to those for which it really isn't needed by lawsuit-crazy money-grabbers (again, above, this may not be true in this case).
Can a blind person use this law against any website? How about even any corporate website? I'm building an anime-fans site. For a large part it's a personal venture, and the purpose of the site would be completely lost without graphics anyhow (anime is generally a graphic medium). I hope this won't apply to my site. How about a site that is for picture galleries, etc. Could a blind person sue on the basis that it's not blind accessible (and would an ALT "boy in wheat fields with...." tag really be meaningful in this case).
Laws and lawsuits often affect not just the target, but are often reinterpreted via precedent into subsequent cases. Thus, it's always good to step lightly around setting such laws, there's almost always some idiot looking to take advantage of them.
Why do people use flash? Because while HTML is nice for static presentation, flash makes things get noticed. Which do you notice more, a static billboard or one that moves in some way (eventually you ignore both if you see them everyday, but chances are you've glanced at the moving one once or twice while all static boards look the same).
The smart thing would be to have an HTML and flash version. It doesn't *really* take too much work to make an accompanying HTML page, especially if you made the HTML then the flash. The main concern would probably be on consistently updated pages. Updating HTML and flash would be a pain, but then, that's what databases and scripting languages are for.
If we could get this is enough "physical" magazines or newspapers it would be a lot more effective. I know some magazines do provide URL's, I'm not sure about newspapers. If the RIAA sends them a "cease and desist" then what? They can stop printing, perhaps even pull copies of the article, but by then it's already out. It's a lot harder to stop something in live print than in online news, too bad it's probably not going to happen.
Every time an article mentions RIAA it should be linked, slashdot them every chance we get! - phorm
Yes and no. Often laws work if a small amount of people with a lot of money want to keep them and are willing to fight with high-priced lawyers to keep them around. The laws may be tossed in the end, but the pricey lawyers can manage to keep them around and kicking for quite a few years.
This probably has a lot to do with the higher cost and hassle of getting land-lines in Japan, and also in a lot of areas of Europe. North America has/can-have some nice rates for land-lines, whereas in other countries they often cost a lot and can take forever to get installed.
I have a friend who recently went to Japan. Things may be different because she's a foreigner, but she found it much more convenient to get a cellphone.
Of course, cell plans in North America have gotten nicer, with "unlimited minutes" plans for certain times,etc.
I'd be using only a cellphone myself, except the bastard telephone company requires that you have a land-line to get ADSL, and I hate the local cable service.
Of course, technology has its problems. I seem to remember hearing some issues about Japanese kids, phones with web-browsers, and porn in public places.
A crowded subway and many people with the same ringtone, oh the fun - phorm
I wonder if there are any health hazards (radiation/cancer?) would be a consideration. A lot of people are already freaked out that having cellphones clipped to their frontal belt area may leave them unable to produce children later in life...
While this is suppose to use the body's "natural" conductivity, I imagine that it might mess with the body's natural electromagnetics or other semi-electrical processes. Aren't nerve impulses electrical in nature? It would certainly suck if your leg started twitching every time your PDA alarm went off (although it would be a neat trojan to plant on somebody).
He is being denied access to a store/site because he is blind
This is fairly stongly worded. You might want to s/denied/not able to attain, because there is no active attempt to disallow entry to the site. The company hasn't made provisions for this special group
But, you could also spin it off the be the fault of the screen-reader. One could state that the company designing the screen-reader product did not make it work with the increasing graphic standard, perhaps by adding an advanced OCR, etc. Maybe a brail-reader based on color depth.
It's fine to say that disabled individuals are not able to use this site and are losing out. But this could set a bad precedent making all companies with graphical type sites liable. How many major sites now use flash, can the screen reader translate that? It would also suck if this set a precedent so that even my little site had at to conform to blind-compatible standards (I do, however, try to use text when possible for lynx compatibility etc)
The major point is, while much information is being presented in a textual format, the internet is moving towards towards a more visually stimulating form of presentation. People with vision impairment are going to lose out a lot from this, but not everybody will think to account for all such special cases, especially when gearing towards a more flashy and potentially better selling presentation.
Can we really expect that text-based support is going to be around forever? In a decade, will an increasingly visual medium be forced to retain non-visual support?
A lot of people will probably be tempted to say "I'm sorry, I understand your loss but why should it also be mine." It's in a way a selfish attitude, but it's also somewhat logical in current society.
Well, time to go back to text-based internet - phorm
This game is free (as in beer), and will run on any xbox that has been modified for use with the GNU/Linux operating system.
Note to the people who think this is plain microsoft bashing: it is not. This game is totally symmetrical, there is no advantage of playing tux over playing clippy, and it pokes fun at both sides
Isn't the fact that you have to run linux on the Xbox somewhat of a bash? Or is it equivilent because you are using MS hardware and Linux O/S?
The programmers *must* have put some anti-MS easter eggs in there though, how could they resist?
Does clippy have the patented MS "Blue Screen of Death" attack? - phorm
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's also one of the major reasons I use VI, people at work assume mono text must relate to programming in some fashion. It's also useful when trying to view code on sites that block it from your browser and disable right-click (though disabling JS lets you right-click too)
Ladies, if you are worried about indecent individuals who are now legally able to look up your skirt you now have a solution. Simply purchase a pen-laser, a little duct tape, and attach it to your underwear aiming at a downward angle. Any potential peepers will end up with a bad case of the blinks and hopefully very unpleasant itch for awhile. Camera will be blanked out.
Actually, I originally meant this to be somewhat humourous, but I wouldn't be surprised if I see these in the next lingerie magazine.
Not that I, um, read lingerie magazines or anything... they're my girlfriend's... - phorm
I believe that this one was actually covered in readers digest. A list of people with similar laser-caused issues included somebody whose eyes were continually hemorraging and bleeding. I wonder if the currently public-available lasers could cause similar damage. Perhaps not pen-lasers, but the long-range ones available in geek shops probably could
,when pen-lasers they were a fad, idiot kids were kicked out for lazing the goalies etc in hockey games. Even a shot in the eyes with one of these little gadgets seemed to cause lasting problems throughout the game, though even the momentary distraction should warrant kicking people out of sporting events.
Actually
I hope you mean excessive speed. Idiots going 100 in a 50 zone, etc. A guy who does 15 over (Canada, so km not miles) doesn't deserve a $1000 ticket. 6:30am every weekday I drive to work for 100km of lonely highway. I take about 130/140km because there the road is highly visible and traffic is nil (if there are cars in my area, I slow down and watch my six).
On high-traffic times (on the way back), I've run into many nutcases that have nearly killed me. Tailgaters a meter from my bumper, etc, one guy who pass me on a DOUBLE-SOLID line (when there was a free lane on the right, no less).
Point, the only person I'm ever likely to hurt is myself, mainly if I hit a deer or something, and past 100km it's going to be a big dent regardless. I've driven past a lot of accidents, and I'll say for certain that speed was definately not the only factor, if a factor at all.
Police happily bag speeders and get cash, but they dangerous drivers are often the ones overlooked. Some guy driving like a maniac at 100 is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a conscientious driver at 130 (on even highway).
Personally, I think the cops could get more money and make the street safer if they left the speeding tickets to those who are driving excessive, and went after the dangerous (bumper-to-ass tailgaters, etc) drivers instead.
landlines aren't as bad as mobiles
How's that? Whenever somebody moves between local districts here they change their landlines. My friends with cells have generally kept their numbers, so long as they're in the general area.
Cells here tend to have a greater spectrum than land-lines and can often encompass 2-3 cities. The only time a local cellular should really change is if the person switches carriers.
One thing to ask is, how much do these suckers weigh, and how big are they? If they're huge and huge they're not going to embraced by laptop users. The PDF file has a picture of a fuel cell (p8) that's the length of laptop. Some laptops still use big ones like that but many have made more compact batteries. Another page shows an external-type cell (p14), which might be nice for airlines, etc, but at the size given isn't anything hugely innovative.
The article also states that they power laptops 2-3 times longer than standard batteries. So what's standard? Between different laptops, and depending on activity, there can be a significant difference how long batteries last. A hard estimate of how long they last under normal conditions (no CD's etc running all the time) would be a lot nicer. Call me suspicious but they also say 2-3 times longer than standard batties. My laptop doesn't run very long at all on a few AA's (insert smiles here).
Lastly, just a poke at the article because I hate lazy editors:
also -notebook comptuers- it would be nice if the reporter could spell
So life is based on certain cells being able to die and be replaced, and others lasting somewhat of a longer time. Is the problem that the long-living cells eventually die off, or that other cells stop/slow their multiplication process or both.
I suppose in the cases of people who don't die of outside caused, death would generally be caused by heart failure? Interestingly enough, I've not heard of tumours growing in hearts, or of people having dying of heart cancer, but perhaps it happens and I just haven't heard of it. The heart would probably be a good place to start though, trying to keep it from degenerating too much in later years.
In an additional note, it might be noted that many of the creatures that live the longest are also not overly prolific. If we were to mess with our genes so we lived longer, we might disable the human ability as far as bearing many offspring.
Isn't cancer caused by cells multiplying too rapidly? Is an issue of exponential growth, where they just keep multiplying and old ones don't die off? If we could make periodic adjustments to the way cells replicate perhaps this would work? I assume that at some point all the cells start slowing down the split process. If we could periodically change that point to equalize between cancer and failure, might we live longer?
I've also heard that hair/nails can still grow for some time after death? I suppose those cells keep on going. Creepy
There was a sig quote that I kept seeing here on Slashdot that seemed to fit quite well for many of these situations, I can't remember the exact phrasing:
A job you enjoy, that pays well, that's legal. Pick two.
Somebody's going to kill me for mangling that sig - phorm
If Slashdot stopped posting every form of content that somebody whined about... there wouldn't be any content. I'd rather listen to an article that may be biased than sombody bitching about an article that may be biased. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
If not for slashdot, I would never have heard of many things I now find useful today, despite the bitching of some people about the posts.
How far exactly does this planetoid come from earth? I suppose if they just noticed it them it's probably nearer to earth lately?
Hopefully we'll be able to get a decent peek at it now via satellite/telescope. I wonder if they'll be able to get some satellites near enough to take a good look during my lifetime.
All your old schoolbooks just became useless - phorm
If doubling the cost of creating a website is your idea of "smart".
Flash is often the expensive part, especially in reference to time-consumption. Throwing a nice HTML layout to get things started would be smart in general. If somebody really wants to add flash, then it should be an addition but not replacement to HTML.
Scripting is a nice way to keep things updated, so the flash page and the HTML page can learn to get along with each other nicely.
What's the point of accessible Flash if all you are going to do with it is piss off visitors?
Because on some sites the presentation effect does look nicer in HTML. Sites used to promote multimedia (games, etc) often use multimedia for that promotion. Again, flash isn't for every site (it's often an overused bandwagon), and it's not good as the only method of presentation, but it does have places where it is an improvement over semi-static HTML.
Looking at this site,however, the case is likely about ugly JavaScripts and missing ALT tags. They probably had a crappy web-developer (or an office person who just filled the role) who didn't know much about standardization and visited JavaScript sample sites too often.
Of course. In cases of law involving death, negligence is often just as damning as an actual attempt. Unless it's gross negligence, the penalties are often less severe though. I suppose that it's bad enough that many people are idiots that we don't need to make hardened criminals of them as well :-)
In this case, I'd hope it would move more towards getting the site made properly accessible (and hopefully prompts others to do so as well), than awarding the plaintiff with a huge wad of cash. Cases of "sue-because-you-didn't-do" should be resolved this way. The cost of legal fees and a little to make up for the plaintiff's time and frustration probably wouldn't hurt though, and would help push the message out.
When computers, first became widely available to the public, there were a lot fewer governing laws and regulations. The also applies to the internet in its initial stages.
Nowadays, it seems that one can't do anything with a PC without a bunch of rules, regulations, or disclaimers. While it's understandable that many companies wish to protect their products, and also protect themselves from lawsuits, it seems that today freedom in IT is becoming increasingly narrow.
What do you think the future of the internet is, in a legal and freedoms sense? Will it continue to become a medium for free expression (quite strongly accented by sites such as here, slashdot), or will insane lawsuits and regulations put to much fear into using the freedoms which are so easily stepped on today.
As the world integrates IT more and more into our lives, what will happen with it as a medium of freedom Vs one of restriction. Will we still be able to speak our minds online, or will we live under the chains of lawsuits, speed governers, and surveillance devices.
Technology is a wonderful medium for crossing new boundries, but often it seems to also be used to impose new ones. Which usage for technology do you see being stronger in the future: the wings or the chains, and how would you see each being applied?
Thank you for saying this without making your reply into a flame. Most other reply-posts were blowing torches out their backsides by now.
Alt-tags are good. All flash is bad. JavaScript-required is bad. My linux machine doesn't have a GUI, it uses lynx (well, links), and it really annoys me when I can't view sites (so I definately sympathise with the blind). Text should be available for all the reasons you've mentioned and more. As long as this isn't a money grab, I support the concept of the suit, I just think that lawsuits are a crazy way to make this point. The isn't a monentary amount being mentioned here, so I can't really say whether it's a cash grab (also has to be a certain amount to be noticed), but if you read some of my comments posted since this one, you'll see my reasons why lawsuits are bad.
And, I'm hoping you'll agree, strongly graphical sites definately do have a place. If I'm visiting a gaming site, it makes me very happy to see flash and lots of graphics (except in the news section, etc).
These all strike me as "active attempts to disallow entry" - the only question is whether it is negligence or ignorance.
Negligence or ignorance does not indicate attempt. It generally indicates lack of attempt.
attempt : to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect (attempted to swim the swollen river) [m-w.com]
Oh, and again, the above are perfect examples of crap websites and the way things should not be (but often are). They don't indicate a attempt to disallow users but rather just (as above) ignorance.
Considering more books are sold today than before the advent of television, the obvious answer is YES.
Apples, Oranges? How is text-based internet support related to books, other than the fact that both contain literary material? Books are not the internet, nor are the two mutually exclusive) and internet is still an evolving medium. The internet may in fact become the successor to TV though, but that's something different again.
Oh, and books are a *wonderful* example of something that's always blind accessible. There are audiobooks and perhaps brailbooks, but I'd expect the selection to be somewhat less than what I find on a shelf in Chapters' written section.
One of us may be tasting toes right now? My breath still seems minty - phorm
The "special provisions" that designers usually make are not to enhance accessability, but to reduce it
Really, you have proof of this, or perhaps saw it on X-files? I thought they were an attempt to make the sites more enticing or graphically pleasing.
I suppose these companies are intentionally aiming to shut out the blind.
Don't confuse affect with intent. And when you post, click "preview", re-read your comment, see where it scores on the I-am-not-a-troll-'o'meter, and then perhaps hit Submit.
I try to be nice, but some people have a fantasical ability for idiocy that overcomes me - phorm
He who snips comments from another's article without including full context...
I didn't say that this is the way things SHOULD be, I said it's the way things are going. And while your PDA or cellphone can't at this time handle the graphical content in all of it's super-flashy often-crapulant glory, they are becoming increasingly capable. A while back most cellphones didn't have *any* graphic support. Now the bloody things are coming out with colour (shudders).
Rethink my arguements? Perhaps you should re-read them. I'm stating what IS happening, not what I think it should be. I happen to enjoy being able to read articles via lynx/links.
Points: Companies want to do what costs them the least money. Adding blind-friendly content on top of the graphic hoopla costs more time
A counterarguement will likely cost them more. Yes, true, quite possibly true. However, have you ever heard of this law or these standards before?
How many web-developers do you know. Ask them if they've heard of this law. Also also them if they use alt tags (probably no, this is due to poor education or laziness). In this and many cases, it's an act of omission through ignorance, not through intent. This court case will probably make the law more visible, and that's likely part of the intent.
As for the law itself, I'm not sure on the specifics. If it applies to corporate sites only and takes heed of target audience, it's fine by me. If it's like a lot of crappy laws, it will be made too broad and can be made to apply to those for which it really isn't needed by lawsuit-crazy money-grabbers (again, above, this may not be true in this case).
Can a blind person use this law against any website? How about even any corporate website? I'm building an anime-fans site. For a large part it's a personal venture, and the purpose of the site would be completely lost without graphics anyhow (anime is generally a graphic medium). I hope this won't apply to my site. How about a site that is for picture galleries, etc. Could a blind person sue on the basis that it's not blind accessible (and would an ALT "boy in wheat fields with...." tag really be meaningful in this case).
Laws and lawsuits often affect not just the target, but are often reinterpreted via precedent into subsequent cases. Thus, it's always good to step lightly around setting such laws, there's almost always some idiot looking to take advantage of them.
Lawyers: Who do you want to sue today - phorm
Why do people use flash? Because while HTML is nice for static presentation, flash makes things get noticed. Which do you notice more, a static billboard or one that moves in some way (eventually you ignore both if you see them everyday, but chances are you've glanced at the moving one once or twice while all static boards look the same).
The smart thing would be to have an HTML and flash version. It doesn't *really* take too much work to make an accompanying HTML page, especially if you made the HTML then the flash. The main concern would probably be on consistently updated pages. Updating HTML and flash would be a pain, but then, that's what databases and scripting languages are for.
If we could get this is enough "physical" magazines or newspapers it would be a lot more effective. I know some magazines do provide URL's, I'm not sure about newspapers. If the RIAA sends them a "cease and desist" then what? They can stop printing, perhaps even pull copies of the article, but by then it's already out. It's a lot harder to stop something in live print than in online news, too bad it's probably not going to happen.
Every time an article mentions RIAA it should be linked, slashdot them every chance we get! - phorm
Yes and no. Often laws work if a small amount of people with a lot of money want to keep them and are willing to fight with high-priced lawyers to keep them around. The laws may be tossed in the end, but the pricey lawyers can manage to keep them around and kicking for quite a few years.
This probably has a lot to do with the higher cost and hassle of getting land-lines in Japan, and also in a lot of areas of Europe. North America has/can-have some nice rates for land-lines, whereas in other countries they often cost a lot and can take forever to get installed.
I have a friend who recently went to Japan. Things may be different because she's a foreigner, but she found it much more convenient to get a cellphone.
Of course, cell plans in North America have gotten nicer, with "unlimited minutes" plans for certain times,etc.
I'd be using only a cellphone myself, except the bastard telephone company requires that you have a land-line to get ADSL, and I hate the local cable service.
Of course, technology has its problems. I seem to remember hearing some issues about Japanese kids, phones with web-browsers, and porn in public places.
A crowded subway and many people with the same ringtone, oh the fun - phorm
I wonder if there are any health hazards (radiation/cancer?) would be a consideration. A lot of people are already freaked out that having cellphones clipped to their frontal belt area may leave them unable to produce children later in life...
While this is suppose to use the body's "natural" conductivity, I imagine that it might mess with the body's natural electromagnetics or other semi-electrical processes. Aren't nerve impulses electrical in nature? It would certainly suck if your leg started twitching every time your PDA alarm went off (although it would be a neat trojan to plant on somebody).
My PDA made me do it! - phorm
He is being denied access to a store/site because he is blind
This is fairly stongly worded. You might want to s/denied/not able to attain, because there is no active attempt to disallow entry to the site. The company hasn't made provisions for this special group
But, you could also spin it off the be the fault of the screen-reader. One could state that the company designing the screen-reader product did not make it work with the increasing graphic standard, perhaps by adding an advanced OCR, etc. Maybe a brail-reader based on color depth.
It's fine to say that disabled individuals are not able to use this site and are losing out. But this could set a bad precedent making all companies with graphical type sites liable. How many major sites now use flash, can the screen reader translate that? It would also suck if this set a precedent so that even my little site had at to conform to blind-compatible standards (I do, however, try to use text when possible for lynx compatibility etc)
The major point is, while much information is being presented in a textual format, the internet is moving towards towards a more visually stimulating form of presentation. People with vision impairment are going to lose out a lot from this, but not everybody will think to account for all such special cases, especially when gearing towards a more flashy and potentially better selling presentation.
Can we really expect that text-based support is going to be around forever? In a decade, will an increasingly visual medium be forced to retain non-visual support?
A lot of people will probably be tempted to say "I'm sorry, I understand your loss but why should it also be mine." It's in a way a selfish attitude, but it's also somewhat logical in current society.
Well, time to go back to text-based internet - phorm
This game is free (as in beer), and will run on any xbox that has been modified for use with the GNU/Linux operating system.
Note to the people who think this is plain microsoft bashing: it is not. This game is totally symmetrical, there is no advantage of playing tux over playing clippy, and it pokes fun at both sides
Isn't the fact that you have to run linux on the Xbox somewhat of a bash? Or is it equivilent because you are using MS hardware and Linux O/S?
The programmers *must* have put some anti-MS easter eggs in there though, how could they resist?
Does clippy have the patented MS "Blue Screen of Death" attack? - phorm