Community Living Chatham-Kent wrote:
> Johnny,

> I think you and Chad are missing my point.  Although posted on the
> alt.blind newsgroup (because the original poster asked for web design
> related visual AND physical issues), the information I posted was
> meant as broadbased and general so as to include support for many
> disabilities.  The site I provided was an example of what a
> particular Community Living agency was doing with the technology (I
> don't have a direct hand in any of it as we're city indepentent so
> critique away regarding the code ;-)  ), but I was happy to hear that
> it was helping people and actually has a decent client base after a
> couple of years being active as an ongoing project.  Our agency
> handles intellectual disabilities; particularly
> deinstitutionalization and helping them interact with the community
> and improve their quality of life whererever possible (including
> providing network and internet resources) however many of the people
> we support have other disabilities including physical and visual
> which we must also contend with.  The actual website sample I was
> mentioning doesn't have all of the technology I was trying to
> explain, however the potential is there.  I'm trying to draw
> attention to that potential, not the website.  I apologize for overlooking
> the fact that screenreader's would be
> used to view that particular demo and I'm not suggesting that the
> Toronto site does the trick.  Please understand that visual
> diablilities are not my area of expertise and that I was attempting
> to address the original poster's question about what technologies
> could be used for web design to assist people with disabilities and
> I've seen the potential in Flash as an option. Also, the site sample
> provided doesn't contain the XML specifications I was mentioning (nor
> do I remember saying specifically that it did.  These were two
> separate ideas) so scanning it for XHTML validitiy is would be a
> further exercise in futility.  My point about XML is that it has the
> potential to help people with some accessiblity issues by pinpointing
> areas of code that could interface BETTER with screenreaders and
> other peices of hardware yet to come.  I thought I was clear that
> neither technology is an instant fix but it is growing and has the
> potential to help people!  As for the web accessiblity guidelines, I'm all
> for them.  But with a
> flash built site, they won't always do well on the automated validity
> scans and the sample site should probably have been tagged as HTML
> Loose for now.  I believe most of the development has gone into the
> Flash portion of it. However if the content allows for all of the
> consessions made in the web accessibility guidelines then it could
> show up as failed and still work fine for disabled users.  The flash
> content could literally read itself without the need for extra
> hardware.

>> If you expect that users wil shift to other browser, you are plain
>> dumb, the majority of users have no choise, it the IT departments
>> responsibility.
> I never mentioned a change in browser although eventually new
> versions will come out with more potential.  My point was about
> improved "browsing technologies" such as better screen readers or
> other devices that could be web accessible without the need for a PC.
> (Such as the voice activated cell phone example I mentioned before)

>> There are a hell of a long way untill that happens. To me it sounds
>> like you have your head up yor arse.
> The Flash site used at Toronto has logins for each individual signed
> up and customizes the content to fit their particular disability. Once a
> user is logged in, people who may have literacy issues have
> content read to them, people who don't, won't.  Content could change
> button sizes and contrast for moderately visually impaired so they
> can have a personalized experience. As for the connectivity issues, there
> is a movement in our areas to
> provide wireless high speed internet for the cost of DSL.  Rural
> areas in our county now have access to 1.5 Mbps for the cost of
> regular DSL.  I believe that the technology for this kind of
> experience is here now.  We just need some talented, forward thinking
> people to help get it into play.
> I'm only trying to help with positive feedback and I am surprised at
> what appears to me to be a largely negative response.  Healthy debate
> I can understand.  Openly insulting and demoralizing someone for
> having an opinion about surfacing technologies?  I can only assume
> that I've stepped on some toes.