Opening New Windows.
00
up maximised or something close to maximised? Thanks.
brucie
00 said...
> Hello, I was just wondering how I can click a link and make the window come
> up maximised or something close to maximised? Thanks.
if the visitor wants a new window they can do it themselves. this is
good. when you do it you remove that choice from the visitor. that is
bad.
also the visitor knows what size they want their windows, they're their
windows to adjust to their own needs. you do not know what your visitors
needs are therefore you should not presume what size they want their
windows to be.
so, in short, just use a normal link: <a href="somepage.html">a link</a>
easy
--
brucie
FAQs: http://allmyfaqs.com/ http://html-faq.com/ http://alt-html.org/
rf
"00" <lec...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:RZgi9.6465$Sr6.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> Hello, I was just wondering how I can click a link and make the window
come
> up maximised or something close to maximised? Thanks.
This might be OK for you but consider my case. I have a main screen that is
set to 1600 by 1200 pixels. I also have a couple of other screens that share
the desktop. All up my desktop is about 3000 pixels wide. How would your
site look parked up in the top left hand corner of this?
I also have about 10 other windows open that I am from time to time looking
at. How do you think I would feel if your little web site covered all of
them up? It would be like somebody running out of a shop as you are
walking down the street admiring the pretty girls and shoving a picture of
their shoe shop right up in your face :-(
If I come across a site that maximizes I instantly leave, never to return.
Cheers
Richard.
Webpage Workshop
hysterically
> Hello, I was just wondering how I can click a link and make the
> window come up maximised or something close to maximised? Thanks.
As brucie has said already, people like their browser windows at the size
that they already have them. At work I use a computer with a huge monitor (I
mean huge) and it has a resolution of around 1600x1200 (!), so no matter how
much text and pictures you have on your page, your site will look pretty
bloody stupid at full screen in this resolution! Okay, not everyone is lucky
enough to have a monitor this big (I only use 1024x768 at home), but even so
I like my browser windows at 800x600 and I (personally) get extremely anoyed
when sites resize my window - often closing the window never to return.
Just a few things to think about, :o)
--
Dylan Parry
http://www.webpageworkshop.co.uk
rmpii
come
> up maximised or something close to maximised? Thanks.
Lets see so far, three replies to your question, and out of the three one of
them tell you how to do it. Here is the answer to your question:
If it is a link: <a href="somepage.html">a link</a>
Just add this: <a href="somepage.html" target="_blank">a link</a>
If it is based on Java script:
window.open('window_url','window_title','width=400,height=200')">
Here is a detailed instructions from Netscape on how to do what you want:
http://developer.netscape.com/docs/technote/javascript/window/
Have fun
--
http://www.whitecrestent.com
Home of the FREE virtual Jukebox
Stream mp3s from your site for free!
Chip C
> "00" <lec...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:RZgi9.6465$Sr6.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> > Hello, I was just wondering how I can click a link and make the window
> come
> > up maximised or something close to maximised? Thanks.
>
> Lets see so far, three replies to your question, and out of the three one of
> them tell you how to do it. Here is the answer to your question:
>
> If it is a link: <a href="somepage.html">a link</a>
> Just add this: <a href="somepage.html" target="_blank">a link</a>
>
> If it is based on Java script:
> window.open('window_url','window_title','width=400,height=200')">
The OP asked how to open a window maximized or close to
maximized...your suggestions do not accomplish that.
target=_blank opens a non-maximized window, and I don't think 400x200
is considered maximized on a lot of PCs.
> Here is a detailed instructions from Netscape on how to do what you want:
>
> http://developer.netscape.com/docs/technote/javascript/window/
>
Finally a decent reference that he may find useful. Why did you
bother with the two previous suggestions that did not solve his
problem.
It should also be noted that one of the nice features of Mozilla is
the ability to prevent sites from popping new windows or resizing
browser windows without disabling javascript completely.
--
Chip
http://www.chipcom.net/
http://www.christmas-stories.com/
"There is no death. Only a change of worlds."
- Seattle [Seatlh] (1786-1866) Suquamish chief
DU
> In Post <RZgi9.6465$Sr6.2...@ozemail.com.au>,
> 00 said...
>
>
>>Hello, I was just wondering how I can click a link and make the window come
>>up maximised or something close to maximised? Thanks.
>
>
> if the visitor wants a new window they can do it themselves. this is
> good. when you do it you remove that choice from the visitor. that is
> bad.
>
Brucie, are you suggesting that use of window.open (to create a child
popup window) is always bad? Are you suggesting that the use of
window.open by the author cannot ease nor help the user's experience?
> also the visitor knows what size they want their windows, they're their
> windows to adjust to their own needs. you do not know what your visitors
> needs are therefore you should not presume what size they want their
> windows to be.
>
The 3rd argument of the window.open() method is a list of window
features among which the option of resizing the window is settable and
granted to the user (i.e.: resizable=yes). What's wrong with that?
If I know that a child (popup) window only serves to display an 300x100
image, then why shouldn't I initially set the popup window inner
dimensions to such measurements? NS 6+ implemented the sizeToContent()
method for such purpose.
When not defined, popup windows initial sizes, dimensions are the
default ones that the user uses; so, that could mean 785x440 when the
content of a popup could be 100x100. Would that make sense?
If all the content of a popup window fits into a, say, 250x150 popup
window, why should an author not define accordingly the initial
dimensions of a popup window? That does not disallow an user to be able
to resize a popup window...
DU
DU
> "00" <lec...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:RZgi9.6465$Sr6.2...@ozemail.com.au...
>
>>Hello, I was just wondering how I can click a link and make the window
>
> come
>
>>up maximised or something close to maximised? Thanks.
>
>
> Lets see so far, three replies to your question, and out of the three
one of
> them tell you how to do it.
You're very arrogant and abrasive, rpmii. You only had to answer
what you thought was the correct answer to 00's question. You love to
lecture others about freedom of choice but freedom does not imply
bashing the honest and legitimate efforts of others nor does
discriminate against people with disabilities.
DU
rmpii
news:_sni9.13306$qh1.8...@news.ca.inter.net...
> You're very arrogant and abrasive, rpmii. You only had to answer
> what you thought was the correct answer to 00's question.
Yea, I probably am a little of both, but at least I was answering the
question. I gave the added benefit of voicing my opinion on why others
could not just do the same, rather than lecture on the evils of window.open.
It seems you had a similar thought in mind in your post when you questioned
brucies argument that window.open was always bad.
DU
> DU" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_sni9.13306$qh1.8...@news.ca.inter.net...
>
>>You're very arrogant and abrasive, rpmii. You only had to answer
>>what you thought was the correct answer to 00's question.
>
>
> Yea, I probably am a little of both, but at least I was answering the
> question.
Everyone in this thread tried to answer the question to their best
abilities and as they understood the question of OP as worded.
I gave the added benefit of voicing my opinion on why others
> could not just do the same, rather than lecture on the evils of window.open.
> It seems you had a similar thought in mind in your post when you questioned
> brucies argument that window.open was always bad.
> --
> http://www.whitecrestent.com
> Home of the FREE virtual Jukebox
> Stream mp3s from your site for free!
>
>
>
>
I questioned Brucie's arguments with respect to his long-time volunteer,
honest and valuable efforts in this newsgroup and with respect to his
undefectible commitment toward web users rights.
I'm all for an honest, fair, open discussion with open-minded people who
1) do not snip others' content for no good reason
2) do not snip others' replies without even indicating so
3) do not discriminate others because they have disabilities
Rmpii, your thinking manners are low-level, mechanicized, domesticated
because you discriminate against people with disabilities in the name of
freedom, convenience and other mediocratic deceptive reasonings.
DU
rmpii
> Rmpii, your thinking manners are low-level, mechanicized, domesticated
> because you discriminate against people with disabilities in the name of
> freedom, convenience and other mediocratic deceptive reasonings.
Low-level, mechanicized and *domesticated*? Hell that doesn't even make
sense......
I do not discriminate against anyone, ever. I just don't think I need to
open the door just because someone has a disability. Is it nice, and good
to open the door. Sure it is. Is it required? Nope not at all.
If I open a store for marathon runners it is not discrimination if I do not
sell wheel chair gloves for the disabled. That is MY choice. Your choice,
as the disabled is to take your business somewhere else. So not carrying it
does not say I discriminate, it just says I am not catering to that crowd.
Is this politically incorrect? Am I not being nice? Probably not (hey, the
world is not really a nice place you know), but is it discrimination? Nope
not even a little. If you want to wear my running shoes while sitting in
your wheel chair, then I will be more than happy to sell them to you. If
you want me to special order you gloves, then I will tell you to go to a
different store.
Not catering to a group of people is NOT discrimination.
Isofarro
> Brucie, are you suggesting that use of window.open (to create a child
> popup window) is always bad?
Creating child windows without any warning is an accessibility problem.
Also, there's this:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-tricks/?dwzone=usability#h22470
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
AnyBrowser Campaign: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
DU
> DU wrote:
>
>
>>Brucie, are you suggesting that use of window.open (to create a child
>>popup window) is always bad?
>
>
> Creating child windows without any warning is an accessibility problem.
>
> Also, there's this:
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-tricks/?dwzone=usability#h22470
>
>
I have not advocated the creation of multiple child windows. I quoted
all of Brucie's post and I questioned his opinion as he worded it.
FYI, I am for clearly indicating (with an icon or otherwise) that
clicking a link will open a child/secondary (popup) window or another
child/secondary (popup) window or will re-use/recycle a child/secondary
(popup) window. That way, the user is notified in advance, fair and
square. Even IBM's usability guide does not mention such suggestion.
Microsoft.com notifies in advance by displaying an icon at the right
hand side of links leading to outside-of-their-site resources: I think
the same idea should be transposed to popup window(s).
DU
rmpii
> Isofarro wrote:
> > Creating child windows without any warning is an accessibility problem.
> > Also, there's this:
> >
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-tricks/?dwzone=usability#h2
2470
Absolutly in agreement. I will note that there are occasions where a second
window could be a good thing. For example, on one of our web based live
report window that lists the number of users on line, moderators on line,
slides moves, video switched etc.... Each line indicated who what and how
many at that moment in time. When you click on any of these items, a new
"detail" window appears with no menu, no title, no (browser window) scroll
bar (there is a div one) and at the bottom of the window, is a big button
that says close. This allows the user to watch both the total number of,
and a detailed report at the same itme. When they no longer need the
detail, they close the windows. They can watch the detail leve of several
things at once.
I also agree with this line found in the IBM document:
"Suggestion: If a second window is necessary, provide an obvious "close" or
"back" link and don't provide navigation to other parts of the site; some
users will blithely continue their task in the second (often smaller)
window, which can lead to further confusion."
Should you pop up a new window just because you can? Nope, but are there
valid reasons to use them? There sure are.
DU
> "DU" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ojoi9.13310$qh1.8...@news.ca.inter.net...
>
>>Rmpii, your thinking manners are low-level, mechanicized, domesticated
>>because you discriminate against people with disabilities in the name of
>>freedom, convenience and other mediocratic deceptive reasonings.
>
>
> Low-level, mechanicized and *domesticated*? Hell that doesn't even make
> sense......
>
> I do not discriminate against anyone, ever. I just don't think I need to
> open the door just because someone has a disability. Is it nice, and good
> to open the door. Sure it is. Is it required? Nope not at all.
>
You discriminate against people with disabilities, period.
We're talking about the World Wide Web here, not about a stairway nor a
door threshold.
> If I open a store for marathon runners it is not discrimination if I do not
> sell wheel chair gloves for the disabled. That is MY choice. Your choice,
> as the disabled is to take your business somewhere else. So not carrying it
> does not say I discriminate, it just says I am not catering to that crowd.
>
Your very own opinions, ideas were heard repeatedly before and they were
verified, understood loud and clear. You discriminate people with
disabilities.
You snip others' content without indicating so and without admitting it.
It's a cheap way of censoring them; your manners testify of your
general rigid ways of neutralizing the others' perspective. In your
case, it has become a normal habit, a standard behavior of sterilizing a
channel, a medium, a web site.
> Is this politically incorrect? Am I not being nice? Probably not (hey, the
> world is not really a nice place you know), but is it discrimination? Nope
> not even a little. If you want to wear my running shoes while sitting in
> your wheel chair, then I will be more than happy to sell them to you. If
> you want me to special order you gloves, then I will tell you to go to a
> different store.
>
> Not catering to a group of people is NOT discrimination.
> --
> http://www.whitecrestent.com
> Home of the FREE virtual Jukebox
> Stream mp3s from your site for free!
>
>
>
Passive discrimination is not more acceptable than active
discrimination. Passive or active discrimination ends up to the same
result. One is not less condemnable as it does not reveal its true face.
Your opinions are condemnable, rpmii.
DU
rmpii
> You discriminate against people with disabilities, period.
> We're talking about the World Wide Web here, not about a stairway nor a
> door threshold.
How? Because I use flash? because I use Java script? The WEB is not a
RIGHT, the WEB is a privlage. If it were a right, then there would be high
speed connections in the congo, and in the remotest places in Alaska. It is
not your RIGHT to be able to use the web. There is nothing that says you
have the right to life liberty and a high speed connection to the internt.
Don't be so dumb. I am not takking anything away from you by using Flash
and Java. If you don';t like the fact that I use it, then go somewhere
else.
> Your very own opinions, ideas were heard repeatedly before and they were
> verified, understood loud and clear. You discriminate people with
> disabilities.
Yea right, because I will not go out of my way to help a disabled person
view a page on the web, I discriminat against them. That is not even close
to discriminating. That is just being politically uncorrect.
> You snip others' content without indicating so and without admitting it.
I see no reason to quote everything you type. The above line clearly shows
your meaning without the need to quote anything else you wrote.
> Passive discrimination is not more acceptable than active
> discrimination. Passive or active discrimination ends up to the same
> result. One is not less condemnable as it does not reveal its true face.
> Your opinions are condemnable, rpmii.
My opinions are the opinions you are afraid to admit are true. Theis world
has gone political correct crazy. I admit it, you hide behind it. Not
catering to someone is not discrimination. It may be unkind in your eyes,
it may not be politically correct, but it is not even close to being
discrimination. You are just silly because you won't admit it.
Chip C
>
> My opinions are the opinions you are afraid to admit are true. Theis world
> has gone political correct crazy. I admit it, you hide behind it. Not
> catering to someone is not discrimination. It may be unkind in your eyes,
> it may not be politically correct, but it is not even close to being
> discrimination. You are just silly because you won't admit it.
You are so full of shit. You try to portray yourself as some martyr
for freedom and everyone else as nazis. Wah, Wah, Wah, it has gotten
way old and lame. Grow up and realize that the person who is afraid
is you - because your neat little impression of the web that allows
you to be lazy is just an illusion. You are stuck in the 90s and
scared to death that the world is passing you and your limited skills
by. Perhaps if you learned instead of keeping your head up your okole
and playing the victim, the big bad world would not be so scary.
Neredbojias
> Absolutly in agreement. I will note that there are occasions where a second
> window could be a good thing. For example, on one of our web based live
> report window that lists the number of users on line, moderators on line,
> slides moves, video switched etc.... Each line indicated who what and how
> many at that moment in time. When you click on any of these items, a new
> "detail" window appears with no menu, no title, no (browser window) scroll
> bar (there is a div one) and at the bottom of the window, is a big button
> that says close. This allows the user to watch both the total number of,
> and a detailed report at the same itme. When they no longer need the
> detail, they close the windows. They can watch the detail leve of several
> things at once.
Bah, a real programmer would've used frames.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
brucie
rmpii said...
[...]
> Not catering to someone is not discrimination.
not only is it discrimination in australia it is against the law
<quote>
The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
Section 67(1)(k) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ("the DDA")
1.2 Equal Access is Required by Law
Provision of information and other material through the Web is a service
covered by the DDA. Equal access for people with a disability in this
area is required by the DDA where it can reasonably be provided.
This requirement applies to any individual or organisation developing a
World Wide Web page in Australia, or placing or maintaining a Web page
on an Australian server.
This includes pages developed or maintained for purposes relating to
employment; education; provision of services including professional
services, banking, insurance or financial services, entertainment or
recreation, telecommunications services, public transport services, or
government services; sale or rental of real estate; sport; activities of
voluntary associations; or administration of Commonwealth laws or
programs. All these are areas specifically covered by the DDA.
In addition to these specific areas, provision of any other information
or other services or facilities through the Internet is in itself a
service and as such, discrimination in the provision of this service is
covered by the DDA. The DDA applies to services whether provided for
payment or not.
</quote>
World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes
(Version 3.1 May 1999)
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html#1.2
B.P.
"brucie" <bruc...@alt-html.org> wrote in message
news:amdgrn$51g2u$2...@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
> In Post <uokf8gb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> rmpii said...
> [...]
>
> > Not catering to someone is not discrimination.
>
> not only is it discrimination in australia it is against the law
I think the reference to "catering to" implies "creating a special
circumstance for." to do such is technically discriminating against non
disabled people.
The best example would be disabled parking. The laws state that accessible
spaces must be provided and accessible entryways implemented, but it is up
to the person to acquire the facilities to get to the store and enter the
store. Catering to, would imply something like special "valet parking" for
disabled people.
The objective is equal opportunity, it is not to asssit anyone in overcoming
their difficulties, anything else creates discrimination.
I am all for the larger parking spaces and bigger bathroom stalls and
accesible information technology, but only when adding those does not impede
or intefere with the rights and needs of everyone else.
B.P.
B.P.
"Chip C" <ch...@chipcom.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17f40ad23...@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 17:10:36 -0400, rmpii allegedly wrote...
> >
> > My opinions are the opinions you are afraid to admit are true. Theis
world
> > has gone political correct crazy. I admit it, you hide behind it. Not
> > catering to someone is not discrimination. It may be unkind in your
eyes,
> > it may not be politically correct, but it is not even close to being
> > discrimination. You are just silly because you won't admit it.
>
>
> You are so full of shit. You try to portray yourself as some martyr
> for freedom and everyone else as nazis. Wah, Wah, Wah, it has gotten
> way old and lame. Grow up and realize that the person who is afraid
> is you - because your neat little impression of the web that allows
> you to be lazy is just an illusion. You are stuck in the 90s and
> scared to death that the world is passing you and your limited skills
> by. Perhaps if you learned instead of keeping your head up your okole
> and playing the victim, the big bad world would not be so scary.
Chip,
There is a lot of anger in this post of yours. The root of all anger is
fear and everyone deals with it on some level.
The point of disability laws is not to make things easier for disabled
people, but to make things equally difficult for all people. To make
something easier for any group of people is to discriminate against
non-members of that group. The goal is to create a level playing field.
There are major social flaws in this system which I will avoid discussing
because this is not the appropriate forum.
As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company spends
10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he has
uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch monitor,
I have been discriminated against. The company would have to buy a 42 inch
plasma display for me also to avoid discrimination as i could use one and
not have to wear my glasses either.. What would be fair would be to tell
the person to obtain the technology needed to perform their job, tell me to
wear my glasses and leave it alone.
B.P.
DU
> "brucie" <bruc...@alt-html.org> wrote in message
> news:amdgrn$51g2u$2...@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>In Post <uokf8gb...@corp.supernews.com>,
>>rmpii said...
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Not catering to someone is not discrimination.
>>
>>not only is it discrimination in australia it is against the law
>
>
> I think the reference to "catering to" implies "creating a special
> circumstance for." to do such is technically discriminating against non
> disabled people.
>
Implementing accesskey and labels for forms controls (input type="text",
type="password", fieldset, select, etc) and links helps everyone, not
just the disabled people. What's so difficult to understand here?
Implementing alternate text (alt, longdesc, summary, scope, abbr, etc)
for tables, images, object, etc.. helps everyone, not just the visually
impaired people. How much time, cashflow, efforts, ram, cpu, etc does it
take to comply with such demands?
> The best example would be disabled parking. The laws state that accessible
> spaces must be provided and accessible entryways implemented, but it is up
> to the person to acquire the facilities to get to the store and enter the
> store. Catering to, would imply something like special "valet parking" for
> disabled people.
>
> The objective is equal opportunity, it is not to asssit anyone in overcoming
> their difficulties, anything else creates discrimination.
>
Establishing parking spaces for disabled people does not prevent me
using a parking lot, does not prevent me from accessing stores,
supermarkets, shopping mall, etc..
> I am all for the larger parking spaces and bigger bathroom stalls and
> accesible information technology, but only when adding those does not impede
> or intefere with the rights and needs of everyone else.
>
> B.P.
>
>
Larger parking spaces and bigger bathrooms stalls do not impede nor
interfere with my access to such facilities, my usage of such resources.
So what is it with you that you don't understand here regarding the
World Wide (Open) Web?
DU
rmpii
news:uokgurt...@corp.supernews.com...
> Bah, a real programmer would've used frames.
Ok, really we used both frames and new windows, But because this is only
Thursday, I was only trying to piss off the new window people. Saturday is
piss off the frame haters day.
rmpii
Thank god I don't live there.......
rmpii
news:nZri9.2844$XE1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I am all for the larger parking spaces and bigger bathroom stalls and
> accesible information technology, but only when adding those does not
impede
> or intefere with the rights and needs of everyone else.
Speaking of bigger bathrooms. Has anyone else noticed the handicap toilets
are higher off the ground. Us short people can not touch the ground.
Because of that, we can not "bear down" while doing our business. This can
lead to constipation and possibly impactment if it is not taken care of. So
to make it easier for the handicap to poop, they may be causing others to
get sick? So now who's hurting who?
DU
I've never read something so low, so lawnmower, so Krusty-the-Clown before.
> As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company spends
> 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he has
> uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch monitor,
> I have been discriminated against. The company would have to buy a 42 inch
> plasma display for me also to avoid discrimination as i could use one and
> not have to wear my glasses either.. What would be fair would be to tell
> the person to obtain the technology needed to perform their job, tell me to
> wear my glasses and leave it alone.
>
>
> B.P.
>
>
I'm sure you don't know how much the company spent for this 42 inch
plasma display. Usually the government subsides pay for such technology:
the fact that you are stuck with that crusty 15 inch monitor leads me to
suspect this is the case. The reasoning behind such "expense" from
government social programs/policies escapes you. It's better to spend a
few thousands $ so that this person becomes/stays active on the work
place than to support him, his needs while he stays at home unemployed.
It's an investment which gives back to all the community; the
alternative makes us all lose something. We are stronger with them and
we all win with them involved; we are weaker without them and we all
lose when they are not involved.
DU
rmpii
> How much time, cashflow, efforts, ram, cpu, etc does it
> take to comply with such demands?
Who care how much time. It is my choice to do it or not. I choose not.
the handicap can choose not to come to my site.
> Larger parking spaces and bigger bathrooms stalls do not impede nor
> interfere with my access to such facilities, my usage of such resources.
Making the toilets higher DOES effect me. So I am being discriminated
against. booo hoooo... I use a different toilet. So you can use a
different web site.
> So what is it with you that you don't understand here regarding the
> World Wide (Open) Web?
Ohhhhhh it is the WW*O*W I never saw that *O* before......
rmpii
> > for freedom and everyone else as nazis. Wah, Wah, Wah, it has gotten
> > way old and lame. Grow up and realize that the person who is afraid
> > is you
Oh cut it out Chip. You are still bitter that I caught you in your CTO lie
about a month ago. Time to wake up and see that there are some people that
don't think like you do. Imagine.... other opinions..... How unique....
rmpii
> I'm sure you don't know how much the company spent for this 42 inch
> plasma display. Usually the government subsides pay for such technology:
> the fact that you are stuck with that crusty 15 inch monitor leads me to
> suspect this is the case.
So that means that I am paying for your problems. So making sure your are
not "discriminated against" DOES cost me something after all doesn't it?
> The reasoning behind such "expense" from
> government social programs/policies escapes you.
Much like welfare, and other social programs where the government wants to
take something away form me and give it to someone else. Lets make
everything even, make sure no one has any advantage over someone else. I
think that is called socialism. And it always fails because people get
tired of giving things away that they earned. And that is where we are
headed with all this political correctness.
> It's better to spend a
> few thousands $ so that this person becomes/stays active on the work
> place than to support him, his needs while he stays at home unemployed.
> It's an investment which gives back to all the community........
Or at least that is what they have YOU convinced of. If it is employment
you want for them, then I can give them employment without giving them a 42"
monitor. Life is not fair all the time. Sometimes it sucks. We all don't
have to be brought to a common level of suckyness.
>the alternative makes us all lose something. We are stronger with them and
> we all win with them involved; we are weaker without them and we all
> lose when they are not involved.
Ahh, Socialist propaganda at it's best. Everybody sing! Kumbya.....
Kumbya......
B.P.
"rmpii" <rm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uokq8k7...@corp.supernews.com...
> "B.P." <bp_spam...@ispelunker.com> wrote in message
> news:nZri9.2844$XE1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > I am all for the larger parking spaces and bigger bathroom stalls and
> > accesible information technology, but only when adding those does not
> impede
> > or intefere with the rights and needs of everyone else.
>
> Speaking of bigger bathrooms. Has anyone else noticed the handicap
toilets
> are higher off the ground. Us short people can not touch the ground.
LOL
> Because of that, we can not "bear down" while doing our business. This
can
> lead to constipation and possibly impactment if it is not taken care of.
So
> to make it easier for the handicap to poop, they may be causing others to
> get sick? So now who's hurting who?
I understand your point and still cannot figure out why someone thought that
disabled people are all tall.
Your point is a good (as well as funny) example of how accessibility can be
taken to a point where it interferes with other people.
B.P.
Neredbojias
> "Neredbojias" <donjuan...@coprophagous.com> wrote in message
> news:uokgurt...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Bah, a real programmer would've used frames.
>
> Ok, really we used both frames and new windows, But because this is only
> Thursday, I was only trying to piss off the new window people. Saturday is
> piss off the frame haters day.
I saw you pissed-off Chip C. Was going to stick my 2 cents in but
figured I better not.
I don't know if you ever frequent the newsgroup CIWAH (-Comp Infosystems
WWW Authoring Html, I think), but there's this guy on there named
something like "Andkon" who's even more opinionated than you. I would
absolutely *love* to see you 2 go at it head-to-head over anything that
is basically irreconcilable, anyway. It could be the debate of the
century! (-Unless you both agreed, of course. But what fun that?)
Anyway, in your spare time you may want to pop in to CIWAH and see what
I'm talking about. Fair warning: sometimes Andkon makes no sense, but
then, well, so what.
B.P.
"DU" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> B.P. wrote:
> >
> > Chip,
> >
> > There is a lot of anger in this post of yours. The root of all anger is
> > fear and everyone deals with it on some level.
> >
> > The point of disability laws is not to make things easier for disabled
> > people, but to make things equally difficult for all people. To make
> > something easier for any group of people is to discriminate against
> > non-members of that group. The goal is to create a level playing field.
> > There are major social flaws in this system which I will avoid
discussing
> > because this is not the appropriate forum.
> >
>
>
> I've never read something so low, so lawnmower, so Krusty-the-Clown
before.
And what preciserly is so low about what I said.
>
>
> > As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company
spends
> > 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he has
> > uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch
monitor,
> > I have been discriminated against. The company would have to buy a 42
inch
> > plasma display for me also to avoid discrimination as i could use one
and
> > not have to wear my glasses either.. What would be fair would be to
tell
> > the person to obtain the technology needed to perform their job, tell me
to
> > wear my glasses and leave it alone.
> >
> >
> > B.P.
> >
> >
>
>
> I'm sure you don't know how much the company spent for this 42 inch
> plasma display. Usually the government subsides pay for such technology:
Maybe in your country wherever it is, but my tax dollars to not subsidize
these things.
> the fact that you are stuck with that crusty 15 inch monitor leads me to
> suspect this is the case.
Exactly, if such a thing did happen, I would be extremely pissed off. Why
should one co-worker have better equipment than another?
>The reasoning behind such "expense" from
> government social programs/policies escapes you.
No it doesn't escape me. It happens because groups of people play the
sympathy card to gain wealth.
>It's better to spend a
> few thousands $ so that this person becomes/stays active on the work
> place than to support him, his needs while he stays at home unemployed.
Or perhaps explore other things which that person might be good at. Just
because someone WANTS to be something doesn't mean they are entitled to it.
Millions of people accept employment they do not like because it pays the
bills, a disabled person shoudl be no different. Millions of people are
poor or homeless, a disabled person is no more entitled to a home or wealth
than any other person.
The real reason why things like this do happen is because of the liability
of lawsuits.
> It's an investment which gives back to all the community; the
> alternative makes us all lose something.
And the millions of non-disabled people who are homeless or live in poverty
do not matter. your POV is discriminatory against the extreme poor.
> We are stronger with them
Them? Disabled people are not "Them" disabled people are people. Disabled
people are not exempt from poverty or homelessness.
>and
> we all win with them involved; we are weaker without them and we all
> lose when they are not involved.
Them?
How do we win? From a socio-economic POV, a disabled person consumes more
resources than a non disabled person. many disabled people never add to net
productivity and employing them sometimes cost more than they produce. For
a disabled person to be a productive member of society, they should be
empowered to do what they are good at.
You act as if disabled people are special and need to be treated like a pet.
So what, a person is disabled. They are just another person with a problem
they need to overcome. It is not societies job to help them overcome, it is
their responsibility. If they cannot, then that person is doomed to failure
just as millions of other non disabled people are. It is called life and
everyone has to deal with it.
The point of the anti discrimination laws were to stop employees from not
hiring people because they were different. they were never intended to be a
way for anyone to escape poverty and the other social ills we all are at
risk of.
B.P.
Neredbojias
> Chip,
>
> There is a lot of anger in this post of yours. The root of all anger is
> fear and everyone deals with it on some level.
Chip's getting older and less tolerant of perceived errancy.
> The point of disability laws is not to make things easier for disabled
> people, but to make things equally difficult for all people.
Not hardly. The point of the laws is to give everyone a reasonably equal
chance at survival in spite of natural personal deficiencies. Making
things harder or easier for anyone has nothing to do with it.
> To make
> something easier for any group of people is to discriminate against
> non-members of that group.
Not always, and it's done constantly.
> The goal is to create a level playing field.
Yes, but rarely achieved.
> There are major social flaws in this system which I will avoid discussing
> because this is not the appropriate forum.
>
> As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company spends
> 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he has
> uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch monitor,
> I have been discriminated against. The company would have to buy a 42 inch
> plasma display for me also to avoid discrimination as i could use one and
> not have to wear my glasses either.. What would be fair would be to tell
> the person to obtain the technology needed to perform their job, tell me to
> wear my glasses and leave it alone.
That whole last argument is baloney. The real concept is directly
related to common sense. Basically it's just "give 'em a break." If a
deaf person can't listen to music, fine, but certainly there has to be
something in this oh-so-modern and advanced society than can take its
place and serve as an equitable substitute, and whatever it is should
damned-well be available to them if they want it.
rmpii
> Without even guffawing, rmpii wrote:
> I saw you pissed-off Chip C. Was going to stick my 2 cents in but
> figured I better not.
Chip is an ok guy with some good ideas. Not my ideas but good none the
less.....
> Fair warning: sometimes Andkon makes no sense, but
> then, well, so what.
Oh, and Like I do..... (make sense that is)
I do admit I get very opinionated here. But then I think when there is a
level of anonymity our viewpoints get a little stronger (See in real life I
am a 54 year old elementary school teacher, but don't tell anyone). I fell
in love with this group the moment I visited. There are some very smart
people here with some good ideas and great advice, but with that comes some
very strong personalities. And as long as it doesn't come to name calling
(ok, a lot of name calling, as a little just gets the juices flowing) There
have been some good conversations come out of here. This thread has pretty
much worn itself out now.
I think threads can die one of two deaths. First, everyone is in agreement
and everyone has learned something and the thread just dies. The second
type, starts with some good information then slowly raises issues that can
never be answered because they are opinions, and not facts. A thread about
HOW you use frames is a fact based thread. It will die a peaceful death.
SHOULD you use framed is an opinion. It will die a slow and bloody death.
Much like this one is. It starts out with HOW you open a new window, and
has evolved into something about if it is right to make it easy for
handicapped people to poop even if it means I get constipated......... This
thread is just about dead now. I will probably not answer DU yelling at me
about how I think what he wants is socialistic or not, unless I get really
inspired........ No, it is time to get back to html, there will be
another thread before too long that will digress into crap again, and I will
no doubt be in it.........
B.P.
"DU" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> B.P. wrote:
> > "brucie" <bruc...@alt-html.org> wrote in message
> > news:amdgrn$51g2u$2...@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >>In Post <uokf8gb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >>rmpii said...
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>
> >>>Not catering to someone is not discrimination.
> >>
> >>not only is it discrimination in australia it is against the law
> >
> >
> > I think the reference to "catering to" implies "creating a special
> > circumstance for." to do such is technically discriminating against non
> > disabled people.
> >
>
>
> Implementing accesskey and labels for forms controls (input type="text",
> type="password", fieldset, select, etc) and links helps everyone, not
> just the disabled people. What's so difficult to understand here?
>
> Implementing alternate text (alt, longdesc, summary, scope, abbr, etc)
> for tables, images, object, etc.. helps everyone, not just the visually
> impaired people. How much time, cashflow, efforts, ram, cpu, etc does it
> take to comply with such demands?
No, they do not help everyone. In most cases, they slow down everyone else.
How much money do you think it would cost if every developer added in
everything you just mentioned to every table, image, for etc on the wwww.
It would be in the billions.
But hey, why can't a blind person spend $199 and use that wonderful utility
Microsoft has added to their OS. It does a damn good job of reading
webpages.
I am going to put a little sticky on my website called "Best listened to
with Microsoft Sam"
Did you know that Sam can also play VXML files. So if you were really
concerned with disabled peopel, you woudl make a VXML version of your site.
>
>
> > The best example would be disabled parking. The laws state that
accessible
> > spaces must be provided and accessible entryways implemented, but it is
up
> > to the person to acquire the facilities to get to the store and enter
the
> > store. Catering to, would imply something like special "valet parking"
for
> > disabled people.
> >
> > The objective is equal opportunity, it is not to asssit anyone in
overcoming
> > their difficulties, anything else creates discrimination.
> >
>
> Establishing parking spaces for disabled people does not prevent me
> using a parking lot, does not prevent me from accessing stores,
> supermarkets, shopping mall, etc..
Nobody is prevented from entering any parking lot. If a lot is full, it is
full go eat or shop elsewhere.. Why should a disabled person be treated
specially? Why is a disabled person entitled to a special parking spot? I
do not mind this, but it does piss me off when I have to walk far distances
with large or awkward packages.
>
> > I am all for the larger parking spaces and bigger bathroom stalls and
> > accesible information technology, but only when adding those does not
impede
> > or intefere with the rights and needs of everyone else.
> >
> > B.P.
> >
> >
>
> Larger parking spaces and bigger bathrooms stalls do not impede nor
> interfere with my access to such facilities, my usage of such resources.
And do you know for a fact that they do not impede with other peoples?
Someone already stated that they do impede with short people. Are disabled
people more important than short people? What about short disabled people?
> So what is it with you that you don't understand here regarding the
> World Wide (Open) Web?
Open? Since when did the WWW become the WWOW?
B.P.
DU
> "DU" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Vwti9.13329$qh1.8...@news.ca.inter.net...
>
>>I'm sure you don't know how much the company spent for this 42 inch
>>plasma display. Usually the government subsides pay for such technology:
>>the fact that you are stuck with that crusty 15 inch monitor leads me to
>>suspect this is the case.
>
>
> So that means that I am paying for your problems. So making sure your are
> not "discriminated against" DOES cost me something after all doesn't it?
>
>
You see a loss, a spending, a cost to you, a "discrimination" against
you. Maybe you have a limited perspective of things. You see, life is
full of surprises: getting old, getting sick, having to go through
painful experiences,etc. One day, you might end up on the other side of
"discrimination" as you see it. And when that day will happen to you
(and I'm sure it will), then you'll remember what some of the people in
this thread told you. I'm sure you will.
"The human spirit works like a parachute: it works when it's opened." an
old American saying
DU
B.P.
> Without even guffawing, B.P. wrote:
>
> > Chip,
> >
> > There is a lot of anger in this post of yours. The root of all anger is
> > fear and everyone deals with it on some level.
>
> Chip's getting older and less tolerant of perceived errancy.
>
> > The point of disability laws is not to make things easier for disabled
> > people, but to make things equally difficult for all people.
>
> Not hardly. The point of the laws is to give everyone a reasonably equal
> chance at survival in spite of natural personal deficiencies. Making
> things harder or easier for anyone has nothing to do with it.
How is this any different from what I said?
>
> > To make
> > something easier for any group of people is to discriminate against
> > non-members of that group.
>
> Not always, and it's done constantly.
You cannot legislate equality, nor can you force it.
To give to someone else requires something to be taken from others.
>
> > The goal is to create a level playing field.
>
> Yes, but rarely achieved.
Because the rules are fscked up. You cannot legislate equality because
people are not equal. In order to be equal, people have to be the same.
People are different. There can never be a level playing field between you
and a person who is mentaly retarded. Same with a wheelchair bound person
and Micheal Jordan.
"...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness"
Are some of the most important words ever written in siupport of equality
among (wo)mankind. The equality is in the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of Happiness," and not in physical, emotional, mental or economic terms.
The differences in people is what creates a society and what should be
valued most. A wheelchair bound person who wins a noble peace prize shoudl
not be admired for being disabled, but rather for his achievement and
contribution to mankind.
The laws have perverted equality in an attempt to force all people into
submission. That is an abberation.
>
> > There are major social flaws in this system which I will avoid
discussing
> > because this is not the appropriate forum.
> >
> > As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company
spends
> > 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he has
> > uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch
monitor,
> > I have been discriminated against. The company would have to buy a 42
inch
> > plasma display for me also to avoid discrimination as i could use one
and
> > not have to wear my glasses either.. What would be fair would be to
tell
> > the person to obtain the technology needed to perform their job, tell me
to
> > wear my glasses and leave it alone.
>
> That whole last argument is baloney. The real concept is directly
> related to common sense. Basically it's just "give 'em a break." If a
> deaf person can't listen to music, fine, but certainly there has to be
> something in this oh-so-modern and advanced society than can take its
> place and serve as an equitable substitute, and whatever it is should
> damned-well be available to them if they want it.
Why "give em a break?" Why is give em a break common sense. Are they
helpless pet's to be kept for entertainment?
If a person cannot listen to music, have they lost anything? Perhaps they
can feel things in the music which you cannot and they have sympathy for you
because you cannot experience what they can. Nature is the biggest factor,
not governments and certainly not your pity.
If they want it!!! If they want it, they can do whatever they need to in
order to get it.. Poor people want food and often they do not get it.
Other people might want an education, but they cannot afford it.
Be wary of any government which orders you to be equal to anyone. You are
not equal to anyone and neither am I, nor is anyone else, and it is not
based on race, color, religion of physical attributes, it is based upon
experiences. We may have all been born equal, but ultimately it is our own
ability to pursue "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I agree
totally with removing artificial roadblocks, but nobody is entitled to
anything other than doing their best to achieve their dreams.
B.P.
B.P.
> Without even guffawing, rmpii wrote:
>
> > "Neredbojias" <donjuan...@coprophagous.com> wrote in message
> > news:uokgurt...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Bah, a real programmer would've used frames.
> >
> > Ok, really we used both frames and new windows, But because this is only
> > Thursday, I was only trying to piss off the new window people. Saturday
is
> > piss off the frame haters day.
>
> I saw you pissed-off Chip C. Was going to stick my 2 cents in but
> figured I better not.
Chip seems decent, a little hard edged, but at least he appears to be a
straight shooter.
>
> I don't know if you ever frequent the newsgroup CIWAH (-Comp Infosystems
> WWW Authoring Html, I think), but there's this guy on there named
> something like "Andkon" who's even more opinionated than you. I would
> absolutely *love* to see you 2 go at it head-to-head over anything that
> is basically irreconcilable, anyway. It could be the debate of the
> century! (-Unless you both agreed, of course. But what fun that?)
> Anyway, in your spare time you may want to pop in to CIWAH and see what
> I'm talking about. Fair warning: sometimes Andkon makes no sense, but
> then, well, so what.
Who's Andkon, that name is not familiar. Does he fight with the native
CIWAHIANS, or is he a native? There is a high level of kookiness in there
and it really is kind of fun to stir it up in there. Is he really
opinionated or just trolling the group which historically has always been
highly opinionated and fun to rile up?
B.P.
Neredbojias
> Chip is an ok guy with some good ideas. Not my ideas but good none the
> less.....
Well, if his ideas are (a)good and (b)opposed to yours, then... You see
where I'm going with this?
> > Fair warning: sometimes Andkon makes no sense, but
> > then, well, so what.
>
> Oh, and Like I do..... (make sense that is)
>
> I do admit I get very opinionated here. But then I think when there is a
> level of anonymity our viewpoints get a little stronger (See in real life I
> am a 54 year old elementary school teacher, but don't tell anyone). I fell
> in love with this group the moment I visited. There are some very smart
> people here with some good ideas and great advice, but with that comes some
> very strong personalities.
Oh yeah. Funny you said you're a teacher cause some of the greatest
battles of my life were with teachers in the area of 7-10 grade, hehe.
They really hated me and I fed the fire... Anyway, it's okay to bluster
once in a while but in order to learn you have to put a lid on it
sometimes and shallow the chaff with the grain. Heck, I'm even starting
to validate my web pages and I never thought I'd do that.
> And as long as it doesn't come to name calling
> (ok, a lot of name calling, as a little just gets the juices flowing) There
> have been some good conversations come out of here. This thread has pretty
> much worn itself out now.
>
> I think threads can die one of two deaths. First, everyone is in agreement
> and everyone has learned something and the thread just dies. The second
> type, starts with some good information then slowly raises issues that can
> never be answered because they are opinions, and not facts. A thread about
> HOW you use frames is a fact based thread. It will die a peaceful death.
> SHOULD you use framed is an opinion. It will die a slow and bloody death.
> Much like this one is. It starts out with HOW you open a new window, and
> has evolved into something about if it is right to make it easy for
> handicapped people to poop even if it means I get constipated......... This
> thread is just about dead now. I will probably not answer DU yelling at me
> about how I think what he wants is socialistic or not, unless I get really
> inspired........ No, it is time to get back to html, there will be
> another thread before too long that will digress into crap again, and I will
> no doubt be in it.........
Well you're right, there is quite a diversity of "opinionations" in some
threads. And I guess that's what a newsgroup is about.
Neredbojias
> > I saw you pissed-off Chip C. Was going to stick my 2 cents in but
> > figured I better not.
>
> Chip seems decent, a little hard edged, but at least he appears to be a
> straight shooter.
He's from Cleveland. Ever been to Cleveland?
> Who's Andkon, that name is not familiar. Does he fight with the native
> CIWAHIANS, or is he a native? There is a high level of kookiness in there
> and it really is kind of fun to stir it up in there. Is he really
> opinionated or just trolling the group which historically has always been
> highly opinionated and fun to rile up?
"CIWAHIANS" - I like that. Apparently this Andkon dude wrote an html
tutorial which some of the Ciwahian regulars thought suspect. You can
imagine the comments, and Andkon responded quite, uh, eagerly. Ergo, on
one hand we had the established intelligentsia and on the other the rogue
prodigy. It was a good debate to see the strong and weak points of both
sides as well as the smugness resident in each respective camp. I don't
know if the tutorial was any good or not because I didn't read it, but it
sure as hell generated more interest than anything else I've ever seen in
the same environs.
Andkon wasn't just trolling but his style of argument was quite troll-
like and that's probably what caused all the hullabaloo. Anyway, it was
the single biggest "event" I've ever seen in a newsgroup and it was still
going on when I left ciwah (-not really enough time for it and there is a
little too much smugness there for my tastes. So you're a genius at
html/xhtml/xml etc., etc., etc. So what? Knowing something well isn't
license to belittle the less enlightened.)
Neredbojias
> > > Chip,
> > >
> > > There is a lot of anger in this post of yours. The root of all anger is
> > > fear and everyone deals with it on some level.
> >
> > Chip's getting older and less tolerant of perceived errancy.
> >
> > > The point of disability laws is not to make things easier for disabled
> > > people, but to make things equally difficult for all people.
> >
> > Not hardly. The point of the laws is to give everyone a reasonably equal
> > chance at survival in spite of natural personal deficiencies. Making
> > things harder or easier for anyone has nothing to do with it.
>
> How is this any different from what I said?
Emphasis. The goal is to make life easier for everyone not bring the
elevated down to the lowest commen denominator of difficulty.
> > > To make
> > > something easier for any group of people is to discriminate against
> > > non-members of that group.
> >
> > Not always, and it's done constantly.
>
> You cannot legislate equality, nor can you force it.
Common dogma and a common misconception. 100 years ago man couldn't fly,
either.
> To give to someone else requires something to be taken from others.
Oh no. In fact if you think hard enough you may be able to see there are
many times when giving something to someone enriches *both* lives in
truly profound ways with an essence of substance created from where there
was nothing before.
> > > The goal is to create a level playing field.
> >
> > Yes, but rarely achieved.
>
> Because the rules are fscked up. You cannot legislate equality because
> people are not equal. In order to be equal, people have to be the same.
> People are different. There can never be a level playing field between you
> and a person who is mentaly retarded. Same with a wheelchair bound person
> and Micheal Jordan.
We disagree here and probably have incompatible philosophies. I think
people *are* equal, all people are equal - at least on the level that
counts. "Equal" doesn't mean "same"; 5 + 1 is not the same as 3 + 3, but
they are equal. Is someone less of a person because he is, for instance,
mentally retarded? I say no.
> "...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
> Pursuit of Happiness"
>
> Are some of the most important words ever written in siupport of equality
> among (wo)mankind. The equality is in the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
> of Happiness," and not in physical, emotional, mental or economic terms.
>
> The differences in people is what creates a society and what should be
> valued most. A wheelchair bound person who wins a noble peace prize shoudl
> not be admired for being disabled, but rather for his achievement and
> contribution to mankind.
>
> The laws have perverted equality in an attempt to force all people into
> submission. That is an abberation.
I won't deny that laws can be faulty, but that's where the human factor
steps in. Eventually, anyway.
<snip>
> > That whole last argument is baloney. The real concept is directly
> > related to common sense. Basically it's just "give 'em a break." If a
> > deaf person can't listen to music, fine, but certainly there has to be
> > something in this oh-so-modern and advanced society than can take its
> > place and serve as an equitable substitute, and whatever it is should
> > damned-well be available to them if they want it.
>
> Why "give em a break?" Why is give em a break common sense. Are they
> helpless pet's to be kept for entertainment?
>
> If a person cannot listen to music, have they lost anything? Perhaps they
> can feel things in the music which you cannot and they have sympathy for you
> because you cannot experience what they can. Nature is the biggest factor,
> not governments and certainly not your pity.
>
> If they want it!!! If they want it, they can do whatever they need to in
> order to get it.. Poor people want food and often they do not get it.
> Other people might want an education, but they cannot afford it.
>
> Be wary of any government which orders you to be equal to anyone. You are
> not equal to anyone and neither am I, nor is anyone else, and it is not
> based on race, color, religion of physical attributes, it is based upon
> experiences. We may have all been born equal, but ultimately it is our own
> ability to pursue "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I agree
> totally with removing artificial roadblocks, but nobody is entitled to
> anything other than doing their best to achieve their dreams.
Everybody is entitled to the right to "the pursuit of happiness" which,
of course, includes survival. If a man has no arms and no legs he is
*definitely* entitled to super-normal care and consideration because of
that fact - at least in any kind of rational and civilized society. This
is not to say that he should be treated like a vegetable or a pet but
that he should have a chance at being human somewhat similar to the
chances everyone else has. In order for this to be, special requirements
are indeed necessary.
Isofarro
> You cannot legislate equality, nor can you force it.
>
> To give to someone else requires something to be taken from others.
On the World Wide Web this is complete rubbish. It is _very_ possible
to deliver a bells and whistles website to a visitor while still
allowing the page to be completely accessible, thus usable to a wider
audience including people with disabilities and people with a diverse
range of user agents and devices.
The technique of graceful degradation (or Augementative Authoring) is
well known.
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
AnyBrowser Campaign: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
Isofarro
> Yea right, because I will not go out of my way to help a disabled
> person view a page on the web,
There you go again. Creating an accessible website does not involve
significantly more work. Quite the opposite is true - you go out of
your way to make web sites inaccessible.
Isofarro
> "DU" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sXsi9.13324$qh1.8...@news.ca.inter.net...
>> How much time, cashflow, efforts, ram, cpu, etc does it
>> take to comply with such demands?
>
> Who care how much time. It is my choice to do it or not.
You chose to be discriminatory in your authoring practice.
> the handicap can choose not to come to my site.
No - you go out of your way to _prevent_ them from using your website.
They don't have a choice, your website is completely unusable,
inaccessible and junk.
Isofarro
>
> "brucie" <bruc...@alt-html.org> wrote in message
> news:amdgrn$51g2u$2...@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
>> In Post <uokf8gb...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> rmpii said...
>> [...]
>>
>> > Not catering to someone is not discrimination.
>>
>> not only is it discrimination in australia it is against the law
>
> I think the reference to "catering to" implies "creating a special
> circumstance for."
Then the implication is incorrect. Catering for people with
disabilities involves making websites more accessible and compliant to
guidelines published by WAI and RNIB. There is no special circumstance,
because an accessible website can be used by more people, on more
devices and in more locations than a non-accessible one. So by creating
accessible websites, you allow a much larger group of people to use
your website, and this includes people with disabilities.
Chip C
> "B.P." <bp_spam...@ispelunker.com> wrote in message
> news:qdsi9.2873$XE1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Chip C" <ch...@chipcom.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.17f40ad23...@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> > > You are so full of shit. You try to portray yourself as some martyr
> > > for freedom and everyone else as nazis. Wah, Wah, Wah, it has gotten
> > > way old and lame. Grow up and realize that the person who is afraid
> > > is you
>
> Oh cut it out Chip. You are still bitter that I caught you in your CTO lie
> about a month ago. Time to wake up and see that there are some people that
> don't think like you do. Imagine.... other opinions..... How unique....
I'm still laughing at that, as well as collecting my paycheck,
bonuses and other perks as the Chief Technology Officer...known as
Manager of Technology, at Q4-2, though I almost left to go back to a
less stressful plain, ole, developer job for Intellicorp. A hefty
raise, bonus and the chance to get a brand spanking new Harley if I
bring home our Harley project early changed my mind. My CEO, who goes
by President, and our CFO who goes by Controller, got a good laugh
from your posts too.
I have no problem with other opinions. Your trouble is that you like
to spin things and twist things around rather than debate honestly
and with integrity. That's the other funny thing about this
group...watching you try to play the role of the *enlightened
martyr*. It's even funnier when you blast away at those who disagree,
like you did with Zak earlier. Pot-Kettle-Black, but you knew that.
--
Chip
http://www.chipcom.net/
http://www.christmas-stories.com/
"There is no death. Only a change of worlds."
- Seattle [Seatlh] (1786-1866) Suquamish chief
Chip C
> Without even guffawing, B.P. wrote:
>
> > Chip,
> >
> > There is a lot of anger in this post of yours. The root of all anger is
> > fear and everyone deals with it on some level.
>
> Chip's getting older and less tolerant of perceived errancy.
>
I still can't get used to being a grandpa!
BP doesn't know me well enough to know that even when I am using
strong language and blasting away, I have a smile on my face. Usenet
is not worth getting one's blood pressure up over...but it is a good
place to relieve stress by being less diplomatic than one has to be
with clients and employees. :p
rmpii
> "The human spirit works like a parachute: it works when it's opened." an
> old American saying
Actually I like this old American saying better.....
Life is like a dick, When it's soft you can't beat it, when it's hart your
get screwed......
rmpii
> Well, if his ideas are (a)good and (b)opposed to yours, then... You see
> where I'm going with this?
Good idea's are not mutually exclusive. Use frames and don't use frames are
both good ideas. They both are correct, jst at different times.
> Anyway, it's okay to bluster
> once in a while but in order to learn you have to put a lid on it
> sometimes and shallow the chaff with the grain. Heck, I'm even starting
> to validate my web pages and I never thought I'd do that.
We use the validation on every page we make. We always fail to get 100%
becuase we just extensive java script, and flash, but we still run it
through the validator to catch other errors. I have never said anything but
you shoul try to validate, and your should try to make your pages accesable.
But I have said that doing that does NOT have to be the goal of your page.
> Well you're right, there is quite a diversity of "opinionations" in some
> threads. And I guess that's what a newsgroup is about.
That is what makes them so great. There is a huge diversity in writers and
an equally huge diversity in readers. I would guess here are 2,3 maybe 10
times as many readers of this group than there are writers in it. Some are
Chip fans, some Iso fans (isofans, that sounds funny) they read, and get
stuff out of everything. I give them credit to remove the chaf from the
seed
Timo Pirinen
bp_spam...@ispelunker.com says...
> As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company spends
> 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he has
> uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch monitor,
> I have been discriminated against. The company would have to buy a 42 inch
> plasma display for me also to avoid discrimination as i could use one and
> not have to wear my glasses either.. What would be fair would be to tell
> the person to obtain the technology needed to perform their job, tell me to
> wear my glasses and leave it alone.
No, horror, no! What kind of talk is this from you, B.P.? Lick
upwards, kick downwards, is it? You just wrote that data is the king,
did you not? And you wrote that the user must cope, or the user must
go.
Be a man, B.P., go and demand that the coworker is sacked immediately.
--
Timo Pirinen
piri...@dlc.fi
Neredbojias
> > Well, if his ideas are (a)good and (b)opposed to yours, then... You see
> > where I'm going with this?
>
> Good idea's are not mutually exclusive. Use frames and don't use frames are
> both good ideas. They both are correct, jst at different times.
Uh, being a teacher, you should know that is at best an ambiguous
statement. (-I will expect more from you now.)
It is a good idea to use frames when the situation dictates; it is a bad
idea to use them when it doesn't. Is that what you meant to say?
> We use the validation on every page we make. We always fail to get 100%
> becuase we just extensive java script, and flash, but we still run it
> through the validator to catch other errors. I have never said anything but
> you shoul try to validate, and your should try to make your pages accesable.
> But I have said that doing that does NOT have to be the goal of your page.
You shouldn't *always* fail (unless you always have to do the same
unaccepted thing,) but it sounds like you approach it with the proper
spirit. Validation certainly *isn't* the goal but it's nice to see that
"Congratulations!" come up when you've worked hard on a page and maybe
even tried to make it a little more compliant. So far I've only had one
strict page validate first time out but I've also never had any css *not*
validate (-although there's warnings).
> > Well you're right, there is quite a diversity of "opinionations" in some
> > threads. And I guess that's what a newsgroup is about.
>
> That is what makes them so great. There is a huge diversity in writers and
> an equally huge diversity in readers. I would guess here are 2,3 maybe 10
> times as many readers of this group than there are writers in it. Some are
> Chip fans, some Iso fans (isofans, that sounds funny) they read, and get
> stuff out of everything. I give them credit to remove the chaf from the
> seed
Hmm, I've never considered alt.html a spectator sport but you sure do get
a diversity of personalities and philosophies. I think most people argue
sometimes, agree sometimes, and only occasionally take it more seriously
than they should. Once in a while a troll pops up to stir the gruel but
their lackings and ignorance quickly become apparent and they leave in a
rush because that is about all they can do. However you look at it, it's
nice there's a handy place to get information and have a little fun at
the same time.
Neredbojias
> > Chip's getting older and less tolerant of perceived errancy.
> >
>
> I still can't get used to being a grandpa!
> BP doesn't know me well enough to know that even when I am using
> strong language and blasting away, I have a smile on my face. Usenet
> is not worth getting one's blood pressure up over...but it is a good
> place to relieve stress by being less diplomatic than one has to be
> with clients and employees. :p
I totally agree, gramps. As I was telling rumpy, this newsgroup is a
good place to learn a little and have a little fun at the same time.
With that consideration, it's no surprise to me why there's so much
negative response toward the suggestions of posters wanting to start
their own "structured forums" on IT or something. Structure kills
spontaneity, and here even the "upperclassmen" go off on a tangent once
in a while.
Now forgive me for being incredulous, but are you actually diplomatic in
other environs? Hard to believe...
Isofarro
> As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company
> spends
> 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he
> has
> uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch
> monitor,
> I have been discriminated against.
I find this straw-man argument mildly amusing. Especially when other
discriminating parties insist that the disabled splash out huge sums of
money to appropriate hardware the website designer "approves" so they
can see his website.
So because of lunacies like fixed-width page designs and fixed-font
sizes, someone with partial vision is _forced_ to require a 42 inch
plasma screen so that they can use this website. You now complain that
he has a 42 inch plasma display while you only have a 15 inch monitor.
Now why do you need a 42 inch plasma display - so you can brag about it
being your newest geek toy? Why does the partially sighted user need it
- so they can see a website a web designed has deliberately made
inaccessible?
If you are telling me your geek ego and the requirement to be able to
use the same website fall into the same category- you definitely have a
few screws missing.
rmpii
> Uh, being a teacher, you should know that is at best an ambiguous
> statement. (-I will expect more from you now.)
I was joking about being an elemetary school teacher....
> It is a good idea to use frames when the situation dictates; it is a bad
> idea to use them when it doesn't. Is that what you meant to say?
Same general idea.
> You shouldn't *always* fail (unless you always have to do the same
> unaccepted thing,) but it sounds like you approach it with the proper
> spirit. Validation certainly *isn't* the goal but it's nice to see that
> "Congratulations!" come up when you've worked hard on a page and maybe
> even tried to make it a little more compliant. So far I've only had one
> strict page validate first time out but I've also never had any css *not*
> validate (-although there's warnings).
As soon as you use flash, you fail validation. I guess some feel that is
doing the same unexceptable thing. (I should say, as soon as you use flash
with embed so older version of NN can see it) Wait a second, did I just say
I go out of my way to make sure older versions of a browser can see
something......
B.P.
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:30:38 -0400, rmpii allegedly wrote...
>
> > "B.P." <bp_spam...@ispelunker.com> wrote in message
> > news:qdsi9.2873$XE1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > "Chip C" <ch...@chipcom.net> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.17f40ad23...@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> > > > You are so full of shit. You try to portray yourself as some martyr
> > > > for freedom and everyone else as nazis. Wah, Wah, Wah, it has gotten
> > > > way old and lame. Grow up and realize that the person who is afraid
> > > > is you
> >
> > Oh cut it out Chip. You are still bitter that I caught you in your CTO
lie
> > about a month ago. Time to wake up and see that there are some people
that
> > don't think like you do. Imagine.... other opinions..... How
unique....
>
> I'm still laughing at that, as well as collecting my paycheck,
> bonuses and other perks as the Chief Technology Officer...known as
> Manager of Technology, at Q4-2, though I almost left to go back to a
> less stressful plain, ole, developer job for Intellicorp. A hefty
> raise, bonus and the chance to get a brand spanking new Harley if I
> bring home our Harley project early changed my mind. My CEO, who goes
> by President, and our CFO who goes by Controller, got a good laugh
> from your posts too.
Chip. You might be top IT dog at your company, but CTO and Manager of
Technology are not the same. Neither is a Controller and CFO. While I do
not doubt you perform the function of the CTO, a CTO is an officer of the
company and would be listed as such on the corporate filings. Any corporate
office typically also maintains an equity interest in the company and a
large part of compensation is based upon performance as well as dividends.
CEO and President are often interchangeable, but technically a president
runs the day to day operations and presides over the board of directors and
a CEO oversees the company's executives. A President is required to
incorporate, a CEO is not. No senior managers are officers of the company.
Anyway, I wanted to point this out and hopefully it will be of benefit to
you on the bargaining table because you technically have one more promotion
in your current career path and when you get it, you will get even more
money and perks.
Then again, you are an IT guy, throwing titles around will turn you into a
PHB :-)
B.P.
B.P.
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:24:25 -0700, Neredbojias allegedly wrote...
>
> > Without even guffawing, B.P. wrote:
> >
> > > Chip,
> > >
> > > There is a lot of anger in this post of yours. The root of all anger
is
> > > fear and everyone deals with it on some level.
> >
> > Chip's getting older and less tolerant of perceived errancy.
> >
>
> I still can't get used to being a grandpa!
> BP doesn't know me well enough to know that even when I am using
> strong language and blasting away, I have a smile on my face. Usenet
> is not worth getting one's blood pressure up over...but it is a good
> place to relieve stress by being less diplomatic than one has to be
> with clients and employees. :p
We have a lot in common then :-)
B.P.
Neredbojias
> > Uh, being a teacher, you should know that is at best an ambiguous
> > statement. (-I will expect more from you now.)
>
> I was joking about being an elemetary school teacher....
Well as I recollect, you fit the mold to a T. So if you ever fail at
what you're doing now, there's a career just waiting in the wings.
> > It is a good idea to use frames when the situation dictates; it is a bad
> > idea to use them when it doesn't. Is that what you meant to say?
> Same general idea.
No.
"A newspaper is black," and
"A newspaper is white"
are not the same general idea as
"A newspaper is black and white."
> > You shouldn't *always* fail (unless you always have to do the same
> > unaccepted thing,) but it sounds like you approach it with the proper
> > spirit. Validation certainly *isn't* the goal but it's nice to see that
> > "Congratulations!" come up when you've worked hard on a page and maybe
> > even tried to make it a little more compliant. So far I've only had one
> > strict page validate first time out but I've also never had any css *not*
> > validate (-although there's warnings).
>
> As soon as you use flash, you fail validation. I guess some feel that is
> doing the same unexceptable thing. (I should say, as soon as you use flash
> with embed so older version of NN can see it) Wait a second, did I just say
> I go out of my way to make sure older versions of a browser can see
> something......
I use this Microsoft proprietary filter on one my pages which "de-
validates" (hehe) it, too, but the filter is transparently-degrading in
non-Microsoft browsers so I use it, anyway. I use a certain javascript
routine to compensate for deficiencies in IE; the routine requires IDing
the <html> tag which also devalidates that page. As far as I'm
concerned, those pages are more "valid" for the inclusion of the
supposedly non-valid markup. It's 2002 and the browsers suck. Maybe by
2010 things will improve somewhat and people will be able to use more of
what is now termed "valid markup" in name only.
B.P.
"Isofarro" <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sogema...@sidious.isolani.co.uk...
> rmpii wrote:
>
> > Yea right, because I will not go out of my way to help a disabled
> > person view a page on the web,
>
> There you go again. Creating an accessible website does not involve
> significantly more work. Quite the opposite is true - you go out of
> your way to make web sites inaccessible.
This is the only point of this discussion which makes sense. The laws and
the concepts behind them are to remove and prohibit new barriers from being
created.
Sensible markup and layouts will easily achieve this goal. It really is a
shame that many present creating accessible pages as something which
requires extreme work which requires the highest degree of skill and know
how.
In most cases simply creating a website which is easily index by the search
engines and which doesn't annoy yourself is the best route.
If everyone would view accessibility as part of the "usable by any device"
concept, the emotionally charged arguments of disability would be an easier
topic to discuss. Because in the end, they are people just people with
different browsers which need to considered. It isn't really the person you
are helping, it is the tool they use which you are not interfering with.
B.P.
B.P.
> B.P. wrote:
>
> > You cannot legislate equality, nor can you force it.
> >
> > To give to someone else requires something to be taken from others.
>
> On the World Wide Web this is complete rubbish.
As it is in "never never land"
> It is _very_ possible
> to deliver a bells and whistles website to a visitor while still
> allowing the page to be completely accessible, thus usable to a wider
> audience including people with disabilities and people with a diverse
> range of user agents and devices.
You have just past Mars and are now heading towards Pluto.
>
> The technique of graceful degradation (or Augementative Authoring) is
> well known.
There is no such thing as "graceful degradation," pages may degrade, but
there is nothing graceful about it.
B.P.
B.P.
> You shouldn't *always* fail (unless you always have to do the same
> unaccepted thing,) but it sounds like you approach it with the proper
> spirit. Validation certainly *isn't* the goal but it's nice to see that
> "Congratulations!" come up when you've worked hard on a page and maybe
> even tried to make it a little more compliant. So far I've only had one
> strict page validate first time out but I've also never had any css *not*
> validate (-although there's warnings).
Nah, you should always make your pages fail due some meaningless and
insignificant error. Becoming a member of the pro-validation crowd is kinda
embarrassing due to the kookiness of their leaders.
B.P.
B.P.
"Timo Pirinen" <piri...@dlc.fi> wrote in message
news:MPG.17f56aa09...@news.dlc.fi...
> In article <qdsi9.2873$XE1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> bp_spam...@ispelunker.com says...
>
> > As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company
spends
> > 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he has
> > uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch
monitor,
> > I have been discriminated against. The company would have to buy a 42
inch
> > plasma display for me also to avoid discrimination as i could use one
and
> > not have to wear my glasses either.. What would be fair would be to
tell
> > the person to obtain the technology needed to perform their job, tell me
to
> > wear my glasses and leave it alone.
>
> No, horror, no! What kind of talk is this from you, B.P.? Lick
> upwards, kick downwards, is it?
Kick downwards!!!! Sorry, but I work Monday and Tuesday for the gubment to
take my money away and give to others. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are
for me.
From the way I see it, if a co-worker needs $10,000 of extra equipment to do
the same job as me, then I am worth $10,000 more to that company. As such,
I am getting paid less than a disabled person and I am being discriminated
against.
>You just wrote that data is the king,
> did you not? And you wrote that the user must cope, or the user must
> go.
Yes and if a disabled person screwed up my server, I would not discriminate,
I would rip into them just as hard as i would anyone else.
>
> Be a man, B.P., go and demand that the coworker is sacked immediately.
No I took the big screen away and threatened to kick their ass if they
squealed. You cannot be this dumb can you?
B.P.
-- You will never demonstrate equality until you hate everyone.
Chip C
I know full well what the functions of each position are. Indeed that
is why we don't use those titles...would you feel comfortable having
a CTO do actual work for you...or a CFO or a CEO? In small companies
you wear a lot of hats...I am an officer (CTO - something not
required to incorporate), manager of technology, manager of creative
services, production manager, director of infrastructure and
technical support, a project manager, a developer, as well as the
janitor at times. Our CFO is also the COO, the controller, manager
of client services, our chief dba and a developer as well as a board
member and Treasurer. Our CEO is also the President, Sales and
Marketing Manager, a project manager and a business analyst, as well
as a board member and honorary bartender. We are not a big *public*
corporation, just a lil ole subchapter S, and do not intend to become
one...been there, done that, got the scars to prove it. Indeed our
use of a JIT workforce is a big reason why we are still in business
and profitable.
Compare this to my term as an elected City Commissioner in Raton, NM.
I was also the Emergency Services (fire, police, ems) Commissioner,
on the board of the Water Dept, the Airport, the Chamber of Commerce
and the Senior Citizens council...did that make me any less a City
Commissioner?
>
> Anyway, I wanted to point this out and hopefully it will be of benefit to
> you on the bargaining table because you technically have one more promotion
> in your current career path and when you get it, you will get even more
> money and perks.
The only way i could move up is to become a member of the Board,
which has no perks (though it may someday), or assume one of the
required titles under the articles of incorporation. I could become a
bigger shareholder, but it doesn't keep me up nights worrying about
it. My share of the profits is enough, if I do my part to keep us
profitable. The reason why I considered leaving was only due to some
things totally unrelated to my salary and perks...which have also
been remedied.
> Then again, you are an IT guy, throwing titles around will turn you into a
> PHB :-)
EXACTLY!! Note that I don't use a title or my company in my sig,
though at times I do, when credibility is an issue. I use Manager of
Technology as my public title elsewhere because it doesn't lead
people to think of me as some suit...I still work for a living dammit
and my philosophy on neckties is that they cut off blood to your head
and make you stupid! I made the mistake of letting the cat out
concerning my role as CTO during some argument in here that made it
seem like a relevant point to make. Rumpii goes to my personal site
and thinks it's a lie because I use Manager of Technology
there...thus proving that some people are more impressed with titles
than reality. Bottom line is I own a piece of the company, share in
the profits, and am responsible for all strategic and tactical
technology decisions and planning. I don't give a shit about
titles...everyone that works for me calls me Dan or Chip. If Rummpi
has a fixation on titles, that's his problem, I tend to use whatever
one is apporpriate for the situation...and if I need to throw some
weight around, CTO weighs a bit more than the others. Just don't call
me *late for supper*.
Chip C
>
> From the way I see it, if a co-worker needs $10,000 of extra equipment to do
> the same job as me, then I am worth $10,000 more to that company. As such,
> I am getting paid less than a disabled person and I am being discriminated
> against.
>
Jots that one down as a *keeper*
rmpii
> Well as I recollect, you fit the mold to a T. So if you ever fail at
> what you're doing now, there's a career just waiting in the wings.
Ok.... I will assume that was a complement..... ;-}
> No.
> "A newspaper is black," and
> "A newspaper is white"
> are not the same general idea as
> "A newspaper is black and white."
Wait, I think it goes..... The ink is black.... the paper white... together
we learn to read and write... Maybe I am showing my age there.....
> I use this Microsoft proprietary filter on one my pages which "de-
> validates" (hehe) it, too, but the filter is transparently-degrading in
> non-Microsoft browsers so I use it, anyway. I use a certain javascript
> routine to compensate for deficiencies in IE; the routine requires IDing
> the <html> tag which also devalidates that page. As far as I'm
> concerned, those pages are more "valid" for the inclusion of the
> supposedly non-valid markup. It's 2002 and the browsers suck. Maybe by
> 2010 things will improve somewhat and people will be able to use more of
> what is now termed "valid markup" in name only.
I hope to be retired by then, and won't care any more...... Just sitting
back in Key West.... sipping 7&7's The wife by my side..... naked...
Neredbojias
> > Well as I recollect, you fit the mold to a T. So if you ever fail at
> > what you're doing now, there's a career just waiting in the wings.
>
> Ok.... I will assume that was a complement..... ;-}
Hehe...
> > "A newspaper is black," and
> > "A newspaper is white"
> > are not the same general idea as
> > "A newspaper is black and white."
>
> Wait, I think it goes..... The ink is black.... the paper white... together
> we learn to read and write... Maybe I am showing my age there.....
The point is that even slightly changing words can give greatly different
meanings. A lot of what you post has elements of truth but appears false
as stated.
<snip>
> I hope to be retired by then, and won't care any more...... Just sitting
> back in Key West.... sipping 7&7's The wife by my side..... naked...
You don't care now, do you?
Neredbojias
> Nah, you should always make your pages fail due some meaningless and
> insignificant error. Becoming a member of the pro-validation crowd is kinda
> embarrassing due to the kookiness of their leaders.
Ya know, I never thought of that. From now on I'm going to put something
like <inbed><marquee>Life sucks and then you die.</marquee><inbed> in all
my pages to avoid the humiliation.
B.P.
> B.P. wrote:
>
> > As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company
> > spends
> > 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he
> > has
> > uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch
> > monitor,
> > I have been discriminated against.
>
> I find this straw-man argument mildly amusing. Especially when other
> discriminating parties insist that the disabled splash out huge sums of
> money to appropriate hardware the website designer "approves" so they
> can see his website.
So know the disabled get to surf the web at work also.
It is their problem. Nobody is responsible for their problem but them. It
is up to them to overcome their problem and up to them to choose a career
which they can afford to do.
Hey, I would like to be a brain surgeon, but I cannot afford the schooling.
I am not entitled to that schooling, I have to earn it as do all Americans.
That is the way everythign works in America, you have to earn it. When that
rule changes for anyone, then all Americans stop being equal.
As for the WWW, nobody is entitled to it, it is up tot he individual to
acquire the technology to get on the WWW.
>
> So because of lunacies like fixed-width page designs and fixed-font
> sizes, someone with partial vision is _forced_ to require a 42 inch
> plasma screen so that they can use this website. You now complain that
> he has a 42 inch plasma display while you only have a 15 inch monitor.
Nobody is forced to use any website. Furthermore, in Florida any employer
can terminate any employee at will. You have no right to a job, it is
something you earn and you keep your job by continuing to earn it. If you
need anything outside of what the company supplies all emplyees with, then
you are not qualified for your job and it is up to you to achieve what you
need to be qualified for your job.
There cannot be equality if anyone is being treated special.
>
> Now why do you need a 42 inch plasma display - so you can brag about it
> being your newest geek toy?
The extremely high resolution would enable me to perform more work and
improve my productivity* thus enabling me to achieve my full potential and
improve my earnings.
* Theoretical productivity due to the 16:9 aspect ratio making it possible
to utilize one monitor with windows of width large enough to actually work
in. The thinness of the display allows for a larger display to be placed on
the desktop but further away so it isn't in your face like a 19 or 21 inch
monitor is on a typical desk.
> Why does the partially sighted user need it
> - so they can see a website a web designed has deliberately made
> inaccessible?
There are other inexpensive alternatives that the person can obtain on their
own.
>
> If you are telling me your geek ego and the requirement to be able to
> use the same website fall into the same category- you definitely have a
> few screws missing.
You are making an assumption. It has nothing to do with my ego, it has to
do with equality. Equality cannot exist if one group of people are given
preferential treatment regardless of their circumstances. If one person
needs a 42 screen to perform on par with me, then we cannot be equal because
that same screen would also improve my productivity beyond the other
persons.
I do not have sympathy for disabled people. To have sympathy for a group of
people is to assume your superiority over them.
ISO, you have known for years I have a few screws missing :-)
B.P.
rmpii
sitting
> > back in Key West.... sipping 7&7's The wife by my side..... naked...
>
> You don't care now, do you?
Ok, called me on that one.....
B.P.
> B.P. wrote:
>
> >
> > "brucie" <bruc...@alt-html.org> wrote in message
> > news:amdgrn$51g2u$2...@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
> >> In Post <uokf8gb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> rmpii said...
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > Not catering to someone is not discrimination.
> >>
> >> not only is it discrimination in australia it is against the law
> >
> > I think the reference to "catering to" implies "creating a special
> > circumstance for."
>
> Then the implication is incorrect. Catering for people with
> disabilities involves making websites more accessible and compliant to
> guidelines published by WAI and RNIB. There is no special circumstance,
> because an accessible website can be used by more people, on more
> devices and in more locations than a non-accessible one. So by creating
> accessible websites, you allow a much larger group of people to use
> your website, and this includes people with disabilities.
The guidelines published by the WAI go to far to the extrreme. Adding in
everything they suggest will double the size of the pages and increase
bandwidth costs as well as load on the server and slow things down for
everyone. If it has an adverse impact on others, it is special treatment
and is discriminatory towards those people.
Clean markup, sensible layout and avoiding known things which interfere and
annoy everyone is all that is needed to greatly increase the number of
usable devices.
The WAI goes to far, and when any special interest goes too far, there is
often a backlash and the people who that special interest was designed to
protect end up getting hurt.
B.P.
B.P.
> rmpii wrote:
>
> > "DU" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> >> How much time, cashflow, efforts, ram, cpu, etc does it
> >> take to comply with such demands?
> >
> > Who care how much time. It is my choice to do it or not.
>
> You chose to be discriminatory in your authoring practice.
dis·crim·i·na·to·ry Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-n-tôr, -tr)
adj.
1. Marked by or showing prejudice; biased.
2. Making distinctions.
To discriminate, someone would have to create a flash site with the intent
of purposely prohibiting disabled people. if someone creates a flash site
for their own satisfaction, then there is no discrimination. Nobody is
entitled to the content of any non-publicly owned website.
Not caring or not knowing does not equal discrimination.
But of course we can take this to all sorts of new heights, including that
the WWW as a whole is discriminating to the poor since they cannot afford
access..
B.P.
Isofarro
[disabilities]
> It is their problem. Nobody is responsible for their problem but
> them. It is up to them to overcome their problem and up to them to
> choose a career which they can afford to do.
Overcome - yes. But we, as a collective shouldn't be putting
unreasonable barricades in front of them.
> Hey, I would like to be a brain surgeon, but I cannot afford the
> schooling. I am not entitled to that schooling, I have to earn it as
> do all Americans.
Yep. So once you've saved up all the money, done all the training,
earned all the respect, got all the skills and proven it with an
impeccable track record, then apply for a job as a brain surgeon only
to be refused because you were born on a Tuesday.
I agree with your point that we shouldn't be giving out plasma screens
to everyone and anyone with a disability, but I do strongly believe we
should avoid practices (as web developers) that create further
barricades to their participation in an online society.
> ISO, you have known for years I have a few screws missing :-)
The nice thing about having a few screws missing is that that annoying
rattle has disappeared :-)
Isofarro
> "Isofarro" <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tehema...@sidious.isolani.co.uk...
>> So by creating accessible websites, you allow a much larger
>> group of people to use your website, and this includes people with
>> disabilities.
>
> The guidelines published by the WAI go to far to the extrreme. Adding
> in everything they suggest will double the size of the pages and
> increase bandwidth costs as well as load on the server and slow things
> down for everyone.
There's two different website perspectives here:
1.) A heavily tables-based layout. Accessibility should be built from
the ground up, but in this particular situation there is no
accessibility - it is a broken site. So a lot of kludging is needed to
bring the completely inaccessible website to accessibility. Yep, some
kludges are expensive, but I doubt they are as expensive as the tables
layout themselves. Textual alternatives to images don't add up to much
- even a longdesc attribute (a URL of a wordy description of an image)
on images won't result in a significant overhead on bandwidth since it
would be delivered on-request, not on every page with a longdesc
attribute.
2.) A completely CSS based layout. Most of the kludges above are not
needed here, since the html markup should be clean and well-structured
with the presentation in an extra file. So that cuts down both the file
size monopolised by the tables layout above, and the number of
alterations required by WCAG is a lot lower.
Over time, websites in category 1 will move into category 2, so the
overhead cost of accessibility (on bandwidth) will reduce from a number
of kludges downwards.
An accessibility check on the company website was done last week, and
looking at the suggested accessibility fixes our page size would be
half the size (or even smaller) after these fixes are done.
> If it has an adverse impact on others, it is special
> treatment and is discriminatory towards those people.
Incorporating accessibility in website development will benefit people
surfing the web on handheld computers (and Pocket PCs). At least then I
could be catching up on news on the web using a PC-tablet. Personalised
news summarisers and aggregators are definitely feasible, delivering
tailored content to almost any device. So accessibility benefits _more_
people than just those with disabilities. It benefits anyone that wants
to use the World Wide Web as a source of information, a source of
knowledge, and a source of communicating with people of like-mind.
> The WAI goes to far,
I'll agree to disagree with you here :-) WAI allows pages to be more
accessible to more people in more situations. Since I don't really want
to be stuck at home in front of this monitor each and every day to
catch up with news on the World Wide Web - I'd much rather an automated
tool collate all the info I need, I have a vested interest in
accessibility.
Kris
"B.P." <bp_spam...@ispelunker.com> wrote:
That is when I stopped reading and started plonking. Go join rmpii in my
killfile, you total moron.
--
It's a web site Jim, but not as we know it.
rmpii
> killfile, you total moron.
So, you don't love me?
B.P.
"Kris" <kris...@xs4all.nl.omitthis> wrote in message
>
> That is when I stopped reading and started plonking. Go join rmpii in my
> killfile, you total moron.
This is a sure sign of maturity. You do not like sonmeone elses opinion so
you insult them. Somebody has a lot of growing up to do.
B.P.
frostie
>>As an example. If I am sitting next to a coworker and the company
>>spends 10,000 for a 42 inch plasma display so that he can work because he has
>> uncorrectable vision problem, and I am stuck with a crusty 15 inch monitor, I have been >>discriminated against.
Is it not the designer of the page who has discriminated against you
though, not the company? If it had been made accessible (with some
simple coding) for people with vision problems in th first place then
he wouldn't have needed his 42 inch plasma to see it and you wouldn't
have got the hump about it.
--
frostie
http://www.brightonfixedodds.com
rmpii
news:8tppouo1uioun17db...@4ax.com...
> Is it not the designer of the page who has discriminated against you
> though, not the company? If it had been made accessible (with some
> simple coding) for people with vision problems in th first place then
> he wouldn't have needed his 42 inch plasma to see it and you wouldn't
> have got the hump about it.
I think he was talking in more generalities, that is, the tool bought for
the person with bad eyesight, was the 42" monitor. I don't think he was
talking about just looking at a web page, but looking at software in
general.
B.P.
> B.P. wrote:
>
> > "Isofarro" <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:tehema...@sidious.isolani.co.uk...
> >> So by creating accessible websites, you allow a much larger
> >> group of people to use your website, and this includes people with
> >> disabilities.
> >
> > The guidelines published by the WAI go to far to the extrreme. Adding
> > in everything they suggest will double the size of the pages and
> > increase bandwidth costs as well as load on the server and slow things
> > down for everyone.
>
> There's two different website perspectives here:
>
> 1.) A heavily tables-based layout. Accessibility should be built from
> the ground up, but in this particular situation there is no
> accessibility - it is a broken site. So a lot of kludging is needed to
> bring the completely inaccessible website to accessibility. Yep, some
> kludges are expensive, but I doubt they are as expensive as the tables
> layout themselves. Textual alternatives to images don't add up to much
> - even a longdesc attribute (a URL of a wordy description of an image)
> on images won't result in a significant overhead on bandwidth since it
> would be delivered on-request, not on every page with a longdesc
> attribute.
This I have nothing against. alt attributes where applicable.
A heavily tables based layout should be written in a way so that it is both
logical and allows for incremental rendering. Why nest tables 7 deep when
you can stack them. Nothing special needs to be done here except use a bit
of common sense and the result benefits all.
The longdesc I have a problem with, nobody needs a long detailed description
of an image unless the image is the only content. If I put an image of me
on the beach, the alt attribute should say "B.P.'s fat ass on the beach."
providing a longdesc is pointless.
>
> 2.) A completely CSS based layout. Most of the kludges above are not
> needed here, since the html markup should be clean and well-structured
> with the presentation in an extra file. So that cuts down both the file
> size monopolised by the tables layout above, and the number of
> alterations required by WCAG is a lot lower.
There are still problems with CSS based layout. How do you center an image
in a div? Text-align is unrelaible and moz and IE have different opinions
on how to align things.
We are still years from having a reliable way for complete CSS layout.
>
> Over time, websites in category 1 will move into category 2, so the
> overhead cost of accessibility (on bandwidth) will reduce from a number
> of kludges downwards.
I agree, but until then we still have to kludge. The MLSRealty site was
originally done with the intent of nothing but the most basic (X)HTML and
using CSS. I ended up having to go back in many places and use old school
html attributes to get everythign to align properly in moz and ie.
>
> An accessibility check on the company website was done last week, and
> looking at the suggested accessibility fixes our page size would be
> half the size (or even smaller) after these fixes are done.
I assume you did not write the bloated HTML in the first place :-)
>
>
> > If it has an adverse impact on others, it is special
> > treatment and is discriminatory towards those people.
>
> Incorporating accessibility in website development will benefit people
> surfing the web on handheld computers (and Pocket PCs). At least then I
> could be catching up on news on the web using a PC-tablet. Personalised
> news summarisers and aggregators are definitely feasible, delivering
> tailored content to almost any device. So accessibility benefits _more_
> people than just those with disabilities. It benefits anyone that wants
> to use the World Wide Web as a source of information, a source of
> knowledge, and a source of communicating with people of like-mind.
Here is the problem I have with the WAI
"Provide alternative text for all images. (7 instances)
Lines 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 92 "
----
These are all spacer images or bullets for decoration purposes only. Adding
in alt text for these only serves to bloat the pages.
----
"Use relative sizing and positioning (% values) rather than absolute
(pixels). (19 instances)
Lines 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 29, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 76, 80, 91, 92, 93
Explicitly associate form controls and their labels with the LABEL element.
(2 instances)
Lines 80, 88
Do not use the same link phrase more than once when the links point to
different URLs. (2 instances)
Lines 37, 38 "
--------------
Sometimes relative sizing breaks in high resolution.
I will not lable all forms wil <label>, this is redundant since the form
field is right next to it's content
The same link phrases is a phantom error
--------------
"Provide a summary for tables. (23 instances)
Lines 20, 31, 35, 15, 39, 45, 55, 67, 64, 80, 88, 91, 93, 79, 96, 53, 99
Identify the language of the text. (1 instance)
Line 3
Include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas. (2
instances)
Lines 80, 88 "
I will not provide a summary for each table as it is not needed. What for
<table summary="this table holds the logo">
I provide the language <meta http-equiv="content-Language" content="en-us"
/>
Default place holding charactars often confuse people and serve as an
anoyance to many users.
Nothing here is of a benefit to everyone, full compliance would force
improper markup and bloat my pages.
I am not even pointing to the user checks which would further add bloat.
I can understand where it may have helped you on the company website if
others have done extensive work on it. All the website I write are already
written in very lean HTML. You have seen my work. Following the guidelines
will always bloat my pages. That is why I have a problem with the
guidelines. My pages may not validate all the time due to using browser
hacks or not encoding my querystrings, but my HTML has always been clean,
<font> free and deeply nested tables are avoided at all costs.
>
> > The WAI goes to far,
>
> I'll agree to disagree with you here :-) WAI allows pages to be more
> accessible to more people in more situations. Since I don't really want
> to be stuck at home in front of this monitor each and every day to
> catch up with news on the World Wide Web - I'd much rather an automated
> tool collate all the info I need, I have a vested interest in
> accessibility.
We have a VXML system to do this for our users. Right now it is only for
specific properties, but I will expand it to do complete property searchs
from any telephone. That was one of my funner projects :-)
I will agree to disagree also.
B.P.
B.P.
> B.P. wrote:
>
> [disabilities]
> > It is their problem. Nobody is responsible for their problem but
> > them. It is up to them to overcome their problem and up to them to
> > choose a career which they can afford to do.
>
> Overcome - yes. But we, as a collective shouldn't be putting
> unreasonable barricades in front of them.
I agree with this 100% and is the point I have been trying to make. it is
the whole concept of the ADA (DDA in GB)
>
> > Hey, I would like to be a brain surgeon, but I cannot afford the
> > schooling. I am not entitled to that schooling, I have to earn it as
> > do all Americans.
>
> Yep. So once you've saved up all the money, done all the training,
> earned all the respect, got all the skills and proven it with an
> impeccable track record, then apply for a job as a brain surgeon only
> to be refused because you were born on a Tuesday.
This has happened to me when i got out of college. Equal opportunity meant
no job for B.P. because he was a white capable male in his early 20's and no
big company would get government brownie points for hiring him.
I hope this does no offend anyone, but the only reason I went into the
brokerage business was because that was the only place a young white male
could get a fair shot in NYC in the early 90's. That is unless you had
family or friends in a position to give you a job. Right after college I
had to work in a hardware store (a friend got me the job) just to pay the
bills and buy a suit to go on job interview with. I had managers tell me
they would love to hire me, but the company had to meet "diversity goals."
I grew up in a family on welfare, had no parents asince I was 11, lived on
my own since I was 15, served 4 years in the USAF, paid my way through
college and what did I get for my effort? I got confronted with "diversity
goals." I got tired of it and moved to Florida so I could get a fair shot
in life. I have done well in spite of it all. Why, because I believed in
myself, I empowered myself and did what I needed to get ahead in life. Fact
is, life is hard, everyone has to deal, but to place anyone ahead of anyone
else is plain wrong
>
> I agree with your point that we shouldn't be giving out plasma screens
> to everyone and anyone with a disability, but I do strongly believe we
> should avoid practices (as web developers) that create further
> barricades to their participation in an online society.
I agree with removing barriers also, but for everyone and to do it in a way
which does not create barriers for others. I strongly believe that if you
empower people, they will succeed against their odds. Throwing artificial
barriers ultimately discourages people. The other side of that is one has
to identify the barriers fairly and find a way to remove them without just
pushing the barrier over to a group who complains less.
I think we all feel that equality should be the ultimate goal. How to get
there is a different story. my beliefs are based upon my expereinces and
your beliefs are based on yours. As a group if we take the facts and apply
all of our experiences, the solution is in front of our face. Unfortuantely
we have politicians who make laws based on the loudest voice rather than
collective reasoning.
>
> > ISO, you have known for years I have a few screws missing :-)
>
> The nice thing about having a few screws missing is that that annoying
> rattle has disappeared :-)
LOL, I can shake my head in confidence :-)
B.P.
B.P.
"rmpii" <rm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uonvbrn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I hope to be retired by then, and won't care any more...... Just sitting
> back in Key West.... sipping 7&7's The wife by my side..... naked...
If you ever find you way to Pompano Beach, let me know, but please wear
clothes :-)
B.P.
B.P.
> Without even guffawing, B.P. wrote:
>
> > Nah, you should always make your pages fail due some meaningless and
> > insignificant error. Becoming a member of the pro-validation crowd is
kinda
> > embarrassing due to the kookiness of their leaders.
>
> Ya know, I never thought of that. From now on I'm going to put something
> like <inbed><marquee>Life sucks and then you die.</marquee><inbed> in all
> my pages to avoid the humiliation.
LOL
I like the
<geegaw></geegaw> tag myself :-)
B.P.
B.P.
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:12:39 GMT, B.P. allegedly wrote...
> > Technology are not the same. Neither is a Controller and CFO. While I
do
> > not doubt you perform the function of the CTO, a CTO is an officer of
the
> > company and would be listed as such on the corporate filings. Any
corporate
> > office typically also maintains an equity interest in the company and a
> > large part of compensation is based upon performance as well as
dividends.
> > CEO and President are often interchangeable, but technically a
president
> > runs the day to day operations and presides over the board of directors
and
> > a CEO oversees the company's executives. A President is required to
> > incorporate, a CEO is not. No senior managers are officers of the
company.
>
> I know full well what the functions of each position are. Indeed that
> is why we don't use those titles...would you feel comfortable having
> a CTO do actual work for you...or a CFO or a CEO?
Yes, being an officer does not exempt someone from doing work. The
company I work for is also small and the three hardest working people are
the President, the sales manager (who is also an officer and the bosses
wife), and the VP of Information Technology. None of them have a problem
with doing "menial" labor if it needs to be done. I am not an officer of
the company and I will be damned if I am going to do any menial labor, well
that is unless one of the three people above asked me to and that is only
out of respect for them because i know they woudl never sk me to do
somethign they wouldn't do themselves.
> In small companies
> you wear a lot of hats...I am an officer (CTO - something not
> required to incorporate), manager of technology, manager of creative
> services, production manager, director of infrastructure and
> technical support, a project manager, a developer, as well as the
> janitor at times.
Doesn't the title CTO override the others? If that is how it is, I wont
argue against it, but it really does not make sense.
My company has about 40 workers, 3 offices and 4 franchises. I report
directly to the VP of IT but do not have a title. I am known as "the dude
who fixes the computers" as well as "the dude who writes the websites."
Sometimes I am "linux file server dude" or "smtp server dude." Sometimes it
is just plain "computer dude," or "turn the monitor on for the user dude" I
think I am going to go in Monday and demand the title of "IT Dude." :-)
And when I am off of work, I go home and play President of my own company.
Soemtiems I hire a temp to answer my phone and say "I have a phone call for
you Mr. President" Soon I will unleash my master plan on the world : -]
>
> > Then again, you are an IT guy, throwing titles around will turn you into
a
> > PHB :-)
>
> EXACTLY!! Note that I don't use a title or my company in my sig,
> though at times I do, when credibility is an issue. I use Manager of
> Technology as my public title elsewhere because it doesn't lead
> people to think of me as some suit...I still work for a living dammit
> and my philosophy on neckties is that they cut off blood to your head
> and make you stupid! I made the mistake of letting the cat out
> concerning my role as CTO during some argument in here that made it
> seem like a relevant point to make. Rumpii goes to my personal site
> and thinks it's a lie because I use Manager of Technology
> there...thus proving that some people are more impressed with titles
> than reality. Bottom line is I own a piece of the company, share in
> the profits, and am responsible for all strategic and tactical
> technology decisions and planning. I don't give a shit about
> titles...everyone that works for me calls me Dan or Chip. If Rummpi
> has a fixation on titles, that's his problem, I tend to use whatever
> one is apporpriate for the situation...and if I need to throw some
> weight around, CTO weighs a bit more than the others. Just don't call
> me *late for supper*.
Okay, as long as you are not a suit, otherwise we would have to tar and
feather you.
I just wanted to bring it up because sometimes people are slapped with
titles as a fall guy or a puppet if you know what I mean.
B.P.
B.P.
> Without even guffawing, B.P. wrote:
>
> > > figured I better not.
> >
> > Chip seems decent, a little hard edged, but at least he appears to be a
> > straight shooter.
>
> He's from Cleveland. Ever been to Cleveland?
Not withotu a bullet proof vest :-) Actually no, but I understand that
growing up there can be a tough place.
>
> > Who's Andkon, that name is not familiar. Does he fight with the native
> > CIWAHIANS, or is he a native? There is a high level of kookiness in
there
> > and it really is kind of fun to stir it up in there. Is he really
> > opinionated or just trolling the group which historically has always
been
> > highly opinionated and fun to rile up?
>
> "CIWAHIANS" - I like that. Apparently this Andkon dude wrote an html
> tutorial which some of the Ciwahian regulars thought suspect. You can
> imagine the comments, and Andkon responded quite, uh, eagerly. Ergo, on
> one hand we had the established intelligentsia and on the other the rogue
> prodigy. It was a good debate to see the strong and weak points of both
> sides as well as the smugness resident in each respective camp. I don't
> know if the tutorial was any good or not because I didn't read it, but it
> sure as hell generated more interest than anything else I've ever seen in
> the same environs.
I went on a rampage in CIWAH about 4 years ago, it lasted for 2 years and
cleared out most of the hard core regs. Sniff,sniff .... that was so much
fun.
>
> Andkon wasn't just trolling but his style of argument was quite troll-
> like and that's probably what caused all the hullabaloo. Anyway, it was
> the single biggest "event" I've ever seen in a newsgroup and it was still
> going on when I left ciwah (-not really enough time for it and there is a
> little too much smugness there for my tastes. So you're a genius at
> html/xhtml/xml etc., etc., etc. So what? Knowing something well isn't
> license to belittle the less enlightened.)
That has always been one of my problems with CIWAH. Especially since of lot
of their expertise is wrong and not based upon fact. They also used to like
to gang up on people.
B.P.
B.P.
> Without even guffawing, B.P. wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > There is a lot of anger in this post of yours. The root of all
anger is
> > > > fear and everyone deals with it on some level.
> > >
> > > Chip's getting older and less tolerant of perceived errancy.
> > >
> > > > The point of disability laws is not to make things easier for
disabled
> > > > people, but to make things equally difficult for all people.
> > >
> > > Not hardly. The point of the laws is to give everyone a reasonably
equal
> > > chance at survival in spite of natural personal deficiencies. Making
> > > things harder or easier for anyone has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > How is this any different from what I said?
>
> Emphasis. The goal is to make life easier for everyone not bring the
> elevated down to the lowest commen denominator of difficulty.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. The equality in difficulty means
that many things in life are hard, the goal is not to make life easier for
disabled people, but to remove the vbarriers so that they can confront life
on a level playing field as all people. This means make finding a job as
difficult for disabled people as it is for non-disabled people rather than
make it easy for a disavbled person to find a job and let it remain
difficult for everyone else.
>
> > > > To make
> > > > something easier for any group of people is to discriminate against
> > > > non-members of that group.
> > >
> > > Not always, and it's done constantly.
> >
> > You cannot legislate equality, nor can you force it.
>
> Common dogma and a common misconception. 100 years ago man couldn't fly,
> either.
You still cannot legislate or force equality since all people are different
and as such are not equal.
>
> > To give to someone else requires something to be taken from others.
>
> Oh no. In fact if you think hard enough you may be able to see there are
> many times when giving something to someone enriches *both* lives in
> truly profound ways with an essence of substance created from where there
> was nothing before.
I cannot agree. The government takes a lot of money from me which is
supposed to help others. Each year they take away a midsized sedan or a
down payment on a $200,000 house from me. What do I get in return. Cops
who are useless, roads which are dug up for no reason and an impending
invasion of iraq because they do not like GW Bush and have secrets about him
an Rummy and Asscroft.
>
> > > > The goal is to create a level playing field.
> > >
> > > Yes, but rarely achieved.
> >
> > Because the rules are fscked up. You cannot legislate equality because
> > people are not equal. In order to be equal, people have to be the same.
> > People are different. There can never be a level playing field between
you
> > and a person who is mentaly retarded. Same with a wheelchair bound
person
> > and Micheal Jordan.
>
> We disagree here and probably have incompatible philosophies. I think
> people *are* equal, all people are equal - at least on the level that
> counts. "Equal" doesn't mean "same"; 5 + 1 is not the same as 3 + 3, but
> they are equal. Is someone less of a person because he is, for instance,
> mentally retarded? I say no.
A person may be a better programmer than me, but I can tune up a car better.
You cannot legislate the mechanic to be able to perform the job of a
programmer and vice versa. They do their specific jobs because that is what
they are good at. They are not equals but neither is better than the
other.
Same as abcd != dcba.
This is a problem with forcing equality. Like all people, the disabled
person shoudl be encouraged to do what they are good at. If they are blind,
they will have a tough time programming and should not be programmers. It
is hard enough to find that missing ; or } with good eyesigjht, imagine
being blind and trying. The job requires a certain degree of visual acuity
in order to be competant. You can provide technology to allow them to
function at the job, but they will never excel. A blind person may have
exceptionally well develioped hearing and could make a fine career as an
audio equipment tester for high end stereo companies. Please note that
these are hypothetical examples. there is a misconception that technology
will make someone good at something and even the field. It cannot. What it
can do is remove the barriers so that a person can have access to the place
where they wish to perform what they are good at.
I understand your point about equality as in numerci equality where
something has to be more or less than something else.
Equality can mean many things, but in a social sense, I think of it like:
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=equal
"Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or
situation: "Elizabeth found herself quite equal to the scene" (Jane Austen).
"
But even under the usual definition of
"Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another. "
Means that all people cannot be equal because all people are different and
have different abilities.
>
> > "...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator
> > with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the
> > Pursuit of Happiness"
> >
> > Are some of the most important words ever written in siupport of
equality
> > among (wo)mankind. The equality is in the "Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit
> > of Happiness," and not in physical, emotional, mental or economic terms.
> >
> > The differences in people is what creates a society and what should be
> > valued most. A wheelchair bound person who wins a noble peace prize
shoudl
> > not be admired for being disabled, but rather for his achievement and
> > contribution to mankind.
> >
> > The laws have perverted equality in an attempt to force all people into
> > submission. That is an abberation.
>
> I won't deny that laws can be faulty, but that's where the human factor
> steps in. Eventually, anyway.
Hopefully. My greatest concern is that people tend to think of someone who
says "let them do for themselves" or "do not give them special treatment" as
being bad, uncaring and anti-disabled. In reality, nothing can be further
from the truth, those statements are intended to give disabled people the
dignity to achieve their won destiny as we all do.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > That whole last argument is baloney. The real concept is directly
> > > related to common sense. Basically it's just "give 'em a break." If
a
> > > deaf person can't listen to music, fine, but certainly there has to be
> > > something in this oh-so-modern and advanced society than can take its
> > > place and serve as an equitable substitute, and whatever it is should
> > > damned-well be available to them if they want it.
> >
> > Why "give em a break?" Why is give em a break common sense. Are they
> > helpless pet's to be kept for entertainment?
> >
> > If a person cannot listen to music, have they lost anything? Perhaps
they
> > can feel things in the music which you cannot and they have sympathy for
you
> > because you cannot experience what they can. Nature is the biggest
factor,
> > not governments and certainly not your pity.
> >
> > If they want it!!! If they want it, they can do whatever they need to
in
> > order to get it.. Poor people want food and often they do not get it.
> > Other people might want an education, but they cannot afford it.
> >
> > Be wary of any government which orders you to be equal to anyone. You
are
> > not equal to anyone and neither am I, nor is anyone else, and it is not
> > based on race, color, religion of physical attributes, it is based upon
> > experiences. We may have all been born equal, but ultimately it is our
own
> > ability to pursue "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." I agree
> > totally with removing artificial roadblocks, but nobody is entitled to
> > anything other than doing their best to achieve their dreams.
>
> Everybody is entitled to the right to "the pursuit of happiness" which,
> of course, includes survival. If a man has no arms and no legs he is
> *definitely* entitled to super-normal care and consideration because of
> that fact - at least in any kind of rational and civilized society. This
> is not to say that he should be treated like a vegetable or a pet but
> that he should have a chance at being human somewhat similar to the
> chances everyone else has. In order for this to be, special requirements
> are indeed necessary.
He should be empowered, and in this example, I am all for society providing
him with the tools for survival. I am against the public providing him with
bionic arms and legs so that he can fullfill his goal of being a
construction worker. This is what I meant about "equally difficult." All
people should have the basics to survive, what they do from there is their
choice.
B.P.
Isofarro
> The longdesc I have a problem with, nobody needs a long detailed
> description of an image unless the image is the only content.
Like a pie chart showing the market share of a product, or a graph
describing the growth of funds over the last x years. These are ideal
candidates for a longdesc attribute alternative.
> We are still years from having a reliable way for complete CSS layout.
This is an implementation problem caused by the browser. The CSS
specification has been around since 1999, and as such there's no excuse
for browsers that claim to support it to support it fully.
> I assume you did not write the bloated HTML in the first place :-)
Yes I did (very grudgingly) - although I replaced 180 images making up
the menu with plain text - the clients insisted on having 56 drop down
menus nested three deep - the markup and code just to do that was
originally 200Kb, I pulled it down to 70kb, and with the accessibility
changes I'm hoping to pull it down to 10Kb.
> Here is the problem I have with the WAI
>
> "Provide alternative text for all images. (7 instances)
> Lines 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 92 "
> ----
> These are all spacer images or bullets for decoration purposes only.
> Adding in alt text for these only serves to bloat the pages.
> ----
Star Wars wouldn't be Star Wars without "These aren't the droids you
are looking for." There is value to be gained from suggesting that an
image means nothing, so alt="" is sufficient for these purposes.
But then using spacer images is a kludge to make HTML seem like a DTP,
so its an accessibility kludge on an existing kludge - and those do
tend to spiral. If there's a lesson to be learned - do not use spacer
images.
> Do not use the same link phrase more than once when the links point to
> different URLs. (2 instances)
> Lines 37, 38 "
This suggests the classic "click here" or "more" type links
> --------------
> Sometimes relative sizing breaks in high resolution.
This probably needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis (as is all
sites aiming to be accessible).
> I will not lable all forms wil <label>, this is redundant since the
> form field is right next to it's content
Don't have the experience to comment on this particular instance.
Neredbojias
> > He's from Cleveland. Ever been to Cleveland?
>
> Not withotu a bullet proof vest :-) Actually no, but I understand that
> growing up there can be a tough place.
Not so much tough as vague. Most people there don't know where they're
at.
> I went on a rampage in CIWAH about 4 years ago, it lasted for 2 years and
> cleared out most of the hard core regs. Sniff,sniff .... that was so much
> fun.
-No kidding? I'm going to have to learn how to Google-group and see if I
can read some of that. There's more ego on ciwah than here.
> > Andkon wasn't just trolling but his style of argument was quite troll-
> > like and that's probably what caused all the hullabaloo. Anyway, it was
> > the single biggest "event" I've ever seen in a newsgroup and it was still
> > going on when I left ciwah (-not really enough time for it and there is a
> > little too much smugness there for my tastes. So you're a genius at
> > html/xhtml/xml etc., etc., etc. So what? Knowing something well isn't
> > license to belittle the less enlightened.)
>
> That has always been one of my problems with CIWAH. Especially since of lot
> of their expertise is wrong and not based upon fact. They also used to like
> to gang up on people.
Yes, I've noticed that, too. And the funny part is the wrongest ones are
usually the most inflexible. Also, some of the people are okay but, um,
ephemeral. Guys like Arjun Ray (-what kind of a name is 'Arjun'?) seem
honestly intent on trying to help without the typical associated
smugness. Unfortunately, nobody normally knows what he's talking about.
Reading his posts is like reading Jukka's posts backwards! I've decided
to avoid ciwah for a while and not return until (a) I learn more about
the nitty-gritty of all the esoteric crap they discuss, or (b) I die and
want to haunt somebody telecommunicationally.
Neredbojias
> > > How is this any different from what I said?
> >
> > Emphasis. The goal is to make life easier for everyone not bring the
> > elevated down to the lowest commen denominator of difficulty.
>
> I think you misinterpreted what I said. The equality in difficulty means
> that many things in life are hard, the goal is not to make life easier for
> disabled people, but to remove the vbarriers so that they can confront life
> on a level playing field as all people. This means make finding a job as
> difficult for disabled people as it is for non-disabled people rather than
> make it easy for a disavbled person to find a job and let it remain
> difficult for everyone else.
Misinterpretation is a 2-way street. The goal *is* to make life easier
for disabled people because their life is by default harder than normal.
However, as for the true meaning of your point-of-view, no, things
shouldn't be handed to any groups on a silver platter and attaining life-
goals should be equally challenging for everyone.
> You still cannot legislate or force equality since all people are different
> and as such are not equal.
Is a stupid man unequal to a smart man? Most people would say "Yes."
But I say the opposite and the reason is the fact that he is a man and a
living creature as well. A dimwit has just as much right to happiness
and success as a prodigy. No, neither of those elements should be doled
out to him incongruently, but the handicap of not being particularly
quick oughtn't to limit him to a strictly plebean existence if I
understand anything about enlightened civilization at all. A corollary
to this premise is that the especially capable must be limited in there
discretion to exploit their "lesser brethren" which, to some, may be
considered a "cost" attributable to the remote masses as well as an undue
burden on the "better" people of the world. Tough shit. The cost is
equitable. all people are equal, and the crybabies who whine that their
talents and inititative are being hampered by the stodgy, mundane peers
with whom they share existence are simply closet-despots frustrated by
their inability to exercise tyranny as they would wish.
> > Oh no. In fact if you think hard enough you may be able to see there are
> > many times when giving something to someone enriches *both* lives in
> > truly profound ways with an essence of substance created from where there
> > was nothing before.
>
> I cannot agree. The government takes a lot of money from me which is
> supposed to help others. Each year they take away a midsized sedan or a
> down payment on a $200,000 house from me. What do I get in return. Cops
> who are useless, roads which are dug up for no reason and an impending
> invasion of iraq because they do not like GW Bush and have secrets about him
> an Rummy and Asscroft.
This is a pessimistic point of view supported by completely inappropriate
and dubiously accurate statements. Furthermore, it has nothing to do
with "giving". Regarding the above, you don't "give" anything; it is
taken from you and you have no (real) choice in the matter. Whether your
tax dollars. etc., are well-spent or not is another subject.
> A person may be a better programmer than me, but I can tune up a car better.
> You cannot legislate the mechanic to be able to perform the job of a
> programmer and vice versa. They do their specific jobs because that is what
> they are good at. They are not equals but neither is better than the
> other.
Well, the line "They are not equals but neither is better than the
other," is probably just the same thing I'm saying in different words.
Maybe a good way to say it is "Everyone has an equal right to reap equal
benefits from equal efforts." The "equal efforts" part, though, must be
corrolated to the person as he or she is and do not necessarily connote
equal output or produce. Yeah?
<snip>
> This is a problem with forcing equality. Like all people, the disabled
> person shoudl be encouraged to do what they are good at. If they are blind,
> they will have a tough time programming and should not be programmers. It
> is hard enough to find that missing ; or } with good eyesigjht, imagine
> being blind and trying. The job requires a certain degree of visual acuity
> in order to be competant. You can provide technology to allow them to
> function at the job, but they will never excel. A blind person may have
> exceptionally well develioped hearing and could make a fine career as an
> audio equipment tester for high end stereo companies. Please note that
> these are hypothetical examples. there is a misconception that technology
> will make someone good at something and even the field. It cannot. What it
> can do is remove the barriers so that a person can have access to the place
> where they wish to perform what they are good at.
>
> I understand your point about equality as in numerci equality where
> something has to be more or less than something else.
>
> Equality can mean many things, but in a social sense, I think of it like:
>
> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=equal
>
> "Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or
> situation: "Elizabeth found herself quite equal to the scene" (Jane Austen).
> "
>
> But even under the usual definition of
>
> "Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another. "
>
> Means that all people cannot be equal because all people are different and
> have different abilities.
Okay, let's put it this way: all people are equal in their rights if not
their abilities. But because I am less-capable than you (-for example)
it does not mean that either my rights or my "window for happiness"
should suffer because of the fact.
That is the true meaning behind the nation of the United States. It
isn't, of course, always implemented correctly and many people take
advantage of easy pickins'. (-Sort of like the browsers and the security
bugs.) Still, there is no better approach that I know of and there
absolutely is no other correct philosophy regarding the lives of human
beings.
> Hopefully. My greatest concern is that people tend to think of someone who
> says "let them do for themselves" or "do not give them special treatment" as
> being bad, uncaring and anti-disabled. In reality, nothing can be further
> from the truth, those statements are intended to give disabled people the
> dignity to achieve their won destiny as we all do.
In stating my case, I've suggested that disabled people do need certain
special considerations related and due to their disabilities. I agree
with your concept that these considerations shouldn't give them an
*unequal* advantage in regards to others, ie: non-disabled people. By
providing these considerations, we, as a society, make all people equal
in potential as, indeed, they are in reality.
B.P.
> B.P. wrote:
>
> > The longdesc I have a problem with, nobody needs a long detailed
> > description of an image unless the image is the only content.
>
> Like a pie chart showing the market share of a product, or a graph
> describing the growth of funds over the last x years. These are ideal
> candidates for a longdesc attribute alternative.
I will agree with that, although I personally would place a description of
it directly underneath
>
>
> > We are still years from having a reliable way for complete CSS layout.
>
> This is an implementation problem caused by the browser. The CSS
> specification has been around since 1999, and as such there's no excuse
> for browsers that claim to support it to support it fully.
Unfortunatley we still ahve to live with the browsers. I am still freetting
over the last site I did totally breaking in NN and that is the most valid,
standards compliant browser out there.
Then there is Moz which seems to have problems mixing html attributes and
css attibutes and still ahs that legacy of not loading pages properly and
needing a reload to force it to render.
>
> > I assume you did not write the bloated HTML in the first place :-)
>
> Yes I did (very grudgingly) - although I replaced 180 images making up
> the menu with plain text - the clients insisted on having 56 drop down
> menus nested three deep - the markup and code just to do that was
> originally 200Kb, I pulled it down to 70kb, and with the accessibility
> changes I'm hoping to pull it down to 10Kb.
Ouch, the entire mlsrealty website was done with 1 main asp include of 35k
and 10 asp pages all under 7k each The entire website asp and html is
under 100K. Then again, I had total control start to finish and I am very
strict about small compact scripts and html pages.
>
> > Here is the problem I have with the WAI
> >
> > "Provide alternative text for all images. (7 instances)
> > Lines 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 92 "
> > ----
> > These are all spacer images or bullets for decoration purposes only.
> > Adding in alt text for these only serves to bloat the pages.
> > ----
>
> Star Wars wouldn't be Star Wars without "These aren't the droids you
> are looking for." There is value to be gained from suggesting that an
> image means nothing, so alt="" is sufficient for these purposes.
Yes and they are all there, yet bobby complains
>
> But then using spacer images is a kludge to make HTML seem like a DTP,
> so its an accessibility kludge on an existing kludge - and those do
> tend to spiral. If there's a lesson to be learned - do not use spacer
> images.
You need these to make the pretty table headers as well as attempt to keep
the site together in NN4
>
>
> > Do not use the same link phrase more than once when the links point to
> > different URLs. (2 instances)
> > Lines 37, 38 "
>
> This suggests the classic "click here" or "more" type links
This error did not even exist, it must have been a comment that bobby
misparsed
>
> > --------------
> > Sometimes relative sizing breaks in high resolution.
>
> This probably needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis (as is all
> sites aiming to be accessible).
Yes and very important for visual accessibility. Experience will teach
someone when to force table sizes and when not to, but the WAI does not
distinguish good and bad fixed table sizes
>
>
> > I will not lable all forms wil <label>, this is redundant since the
> > form field is right next to it's content
>
> Don't have the experience to comment on this particular instance.
This adds to incredible page bloat,
Example from w3c
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/forms.html#edef-LABEL
<FORM action="..." method="post">
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD><LABEL for="fname">First Name</LABEL>
<TD><INPUT type="text" name="firstname" id="fname">
<TR>
<TD><LABEL for="lname">Last Name</LABEL>
<TD><INPUT type="text" name="lastname" id="lname">
</TABLE>
</FORM>
(Notice the table for layout:-)
Anyway, it doubles the size fo the form,
<TD class="aligntexttoformfield">Last Name: <INPUT type="text"
name="lastname" id="lname">
Should be all that is needed, if you want the text above the field, throw in
a <br>
B.P.
B.P.
> With neither quill nor qualm, B.P. wrote:
>
> > > He's from Cleveland. Ever been to Cleveland?
> >
> > Not withotu a bullet proof vest :-) Actually no, but I understand that
> > growing up there can be a tough place.
>
> Not so much tough as vague. Most people there don't know where they're
> at.
Isn't that people everywhere :-)
>
> > I went on a rampage in CIWAH about 4 years ago, it lasted for 2 years
and
> > cleared out most of the hard core regs. Sniff,sniff .... that was so
much
> > fun.
>
> -No kidding? I'm going to have to learn how to Google-group and see if I
> can read some of that. There's more ego on ciwah than here.
CIWAH is pretty tame now, they used to gang up hard on newbies. I got beat
a few times in there, but overall I found most of them rather dimwitted. It
seems the more hardcore they were, the less intelligent they were. It seems
as if anything more advanced than HTML 2 was too complex for them to
understand conceptually. When they got confused they would resort to
throwing prhases around from RFC's or throw up the disability defense.
LOL, I had a problem with Jukka for awhile because fo the way he talked to
people. We got into a bit of a fight in here. I forgot what hppened, but
we eventually made peace (and there was much rejoicing in the group :-). As
I looked past his outward arrogance, I realized he truly wanted to help
people.
It is funny because the wronger they are, the harder they will fight which
brings out the evil troll in me :} Like that guy who validated my site when
I asked for comments on content and usability and explicitely stated the
pages will not validate and probably never will. He then proceeded to give
me lessons on ASP, kinda funny since the guy never wrote a line of ASP in
his life. That gave me a few giggles for a week or so.
Anyway, CIWAH can be fun, but be careful about the advice you get in there.
B.P.
B.P.
> With neither quill nor qualm, B.P. wrote:
>
> > > > How is this any different from what I said?
> > >
> > > Emphasis. The goal is to make life easier for everyone not bring the
> > > elevated down to the lowest commen denominator of difficulty.
> >
> > I think you misinterpreted what I said. The equality in difficulty
means
> > that many things in life are hard, the goal is not to make life easier
for
> > disabled people, but to remove the vbarriers so that they can confront
life
> > on a level playing field as all people. This means make finding a job
as
> > difficult for disabled people as it is for non-disabled people rather
than
> > make it easy for a disavbled person to find a job and let it remain
> > difficult for everyone else.
>
> Misinterpretation is a 2-way street. The goal *is* to make life easier
> for disabled people because their life is by default harder than normal.
> However, as for the true meaning of your point-of-view, no, things
> shouldn't be handed to any groups on a silver platter and attaining life-
> goals should be equally challenging for everyone.
Yes, "equally challenging " is the exact term I was looking for
>
> > You still cannot legislate or force equality since all people are
different
> > and as such are not equal.
>
> Is a stupid man unequal to a smart man?
They are different so they are not equal. The stupid man may have other
skills or talents that the smart man doesn't have.
> Most people would say "Yes."
> But I say the opposite and the reason is the fact that he is a man and a
> living creature as well. A dimwit has just as much right to happiness
> and success as a prodigy.
They should ahve equal access to happiness, but it is up to them to utilize
their talents to achieve it.
>No, neither of those elements should be doled
> out to him incongruently, but the handicap of not being particularly
> quick oughtn't to limit him to a strictly plebean existence if I
> understand anything about enlightened civilization at all. A corollary
> to this premise is that the especially capable must be limited in there
> discretion to exploit their "lesser brethren" which, to some, may be
> considered a "cost" attributable to the remote masses as well as an undue
> burden on the "better" people of the world.
I agree that something has to be doen to stop the more capable from
exploiting the less capable, bu tthis applies way beyond disabilities. That
is why I speak of empowerment. Empowerment leads to pride which leads to
true freedom. If things are made too easy for people, they becomes slaves
to their benefactor.
> Tough shit. The cost is
> equitable. all people are equal, and the crybabies who whine that their
> talents and inititative are being hampered by the stodgy, mundane peers
> with whom they share existence are simply closet-despots frustrated by
> their inability to exercise tyranny as they would wish.
The world isn't a fair place. People have to fight to earn their nut and
the danger of not allowing them to fight is worse than the danger of not
allowing them access. If people do not fight for themselves, they will be
slaves to their protector
>
> > > Oh no. In fact if you think hard enough you may be able to see there
are
> > > many times when giving something to someone enriches *both* lives in
> > > truly profound ways with an essence of substance created from where
there
> > > was nothing before.
> >
> > I cannot agree. The government takes a lot of money from me which is
> > supposed to help others. Each year they take away a midsized sedan or a
> > down payment on a $200,000 house from me. What do I get in return.
Cops
> > who are useless, roads which are dug up for no reason and an impending
> > invasion of iraq because they do not like GW Bush and have secrets about
him
> > an Rummy and Asscroft.
>
> This is a pessimistic point of view supported by completely inappropriate
> and dubiously accurate statements. Furthermore, it has nothing to do
> with "giving". Regarding the above, you don't "give" anything; it is
> taken from you and you have no (real) choice in the matter. Whether your
> tax dollars. etc., are well-spent or not is another subject.
That is what I said, they take from me and I get nothing in return and the
money is not spent on the betterment of society.
>
> > A person may be a better programmer than me, but I can tune up a car
better.
> > You cannot legislate the mechanic to be able to perform the job of a
> > programmer and vice versa. They do their specific jobs because that is
what
> > they are good at. They are not equals but neither is better than the
> > other.
>
> Well, the line "They are not equals but neither is better than the
> other," is probably just the same thing I'm saying in different words.
> Maybe a good way to say it is "Everyone has an equal right to reap equal
> benefits from equal efforts." The "equal efforts" part, though, must be
> corrolated to the person as he or she is and do not necessarily connote
> equal output or produce. Yeah?
Why does this make sense to me :-) I agree with the exception of the
output. Reward (money) is based upon output, if you do something because
you want to and you are not good at it, then your financial reward will be
low. if you do somethign that you are good at, you reward will be high.
The point being that all people will succeed if they focus on what they are
good at instead of atttempting to overcome something they aren't good at.
In the case of people who need help to get to a point to realize their
strengths, I am all for assistance, but it stops there. I suck at
basketball, I will never make a living at it. A man in a wheelchair also
sucks at basketball. Neither I nor the wheelchair bound should be
encouraged to "be like Mike," because we cannot, we both suck at it.
I agree that all people are equal in their rights. Their happiness is up to
them to discover
>
> That is the true meaning behind the nation of the United States. It
> isn't, of course, always implemented correctly and many people take
> advantage of easy pickins'. (-Sort of like the browsers and the security
> bugs.) Still, there is no better approach that I know of and there
> absolutely is no other correct philosophy regarding the lives of human
> beings.
If only our nation could live up to it's social potential. The gap between
the rich and the poor grows larger everyday and this prolonged market dump
is quickly dissolving ghe middle class. Microsoft pays their employees
poorly but gives them lots of stock options, Microsoft then takes those
gifted stock options and gets a huge tax break. A $20 billion dollar
company like MSFT pays 0 taxes because of this.
>
>
> > Hopefully. My greatest concern is that people tend to think of someone
who
> > says "let them do for themselves" or "do not give them special
treatment" as
> > being bad, uncaring and anti-disabled. In reality, nothing can be
further
> > from the truth, those statements are intended to give disabled people
the
> > dignity to achieve their won destiny as we all do.
>
> In stating my case, I've suggested that disabled people do need certain
> special considerations related and due to their disabilities. I agree
> with your concept that these considerations shouldn't give them an
> *unequal* advantage in regards to others, ie: non-disabled people. By
> providing these considerations, we, as a society, make all people equal
> in potential as, indeed, they are in reality.
I think we agree on the objective, but disagree on how to achieve it.
B.P.
Neredbojias
> > -No kidding? I'm going to have to learn how to Google-group and see if I
> > can read some of that. There's more ego on ciwah than here.
>
> CIWAH is pretty tame now, they used to gang up hard on newbies. I got beat
> a few times in there, but overall I found most of them rather dimwitted. It
> seems the more hardcore they were, the less intelligent they were. It seems
> as if anything more advanced than HTML 2 was too complex for them to
> understand conceptually. When they got confused they would resort to
> throwing prhases around from RFC's or throw up the disability defense.
What gets me is how some people, and they can be newbies or pros, bring
up one particular rule or procedure and use it to hammer away at your
page or your point-of-view as if that rule was the end-all and be-all of
everything. Yes, certain methods are better than others and certain
things shouldn't normally be done (-speaking reasonably here) but there
are exceptions to almost every rule and there are different opinions as
well. Take "Bobby" for example. If I understand it correctly, Bobby
recommends putting spacer images between your normal thumbs as an
accessibility aid. Some people swear by this, and your markup is the
pits if you don't adhere to this guideline. Well, sorry, Bub, but I'm
not going to do that - ever, for any reason. And if that makes my page a
nadir of useability in the person's mind, that person is essentially
clueless no matter what technical goodies he knows.
> LOL, I had a problem with Jukka for awhile because fo the way he talked to
> people. We got into a bit of a fight in here. I forgot what hppened, but
> we eventually made peace (and there was much rejoicing in the group :-). As
> I looked past his outward arrogance, I realized he truly wanted to help
> people.
When I first started frequenting alt.html, some obviously young girl
posted a message "Who is that Jukka guy?" and went into a long lament
about why she was leaving, never to return, due to his reply to someone
else's probably less-than scintillating remark in the same thread. Gave
me a chuckle, although her point wasn't invalid. However, Jukka, like
all of us, has the right to respond in the manner he sees fit. Yes, he's
pretty rude sometimes; it's like he's begging to be argued with and he
probably is because that's how he feels he can best make his point. But
Jukka is no troll and I also believe he tries to help people if not
always with the same degree of tolerance.
> It is funny because the wronger they are, the harder they will fight which
> brings out the evil troll in me :} Like that guy who validated my site when
> I asked for comments on content and usability and explicitely stated the
> pages will not validate and probably never will. He then proceeded to give
> me lessons on ASP, kinda funny since the guy never wrote a line of ASP in
> his life. That gave me a few giggles for a week or so.
>
> Anyway, CIWAH can be fun, but be careful about the advice you get in there.
Well, actually, part of the "learning experience" is giving advice as
well as taking/evaluating it, and sometimes the advice will be wrong. I
think you learn more when you give *bad* advice and then, a few weeks or
months later, realize it. If you feel like a fool, you've learned
something. OTOH, if you argue for some dogmatic point that would hardly
be applicable in all situations, you short-circuit your ability to learn
anything. That happens in newsgroups, -and elsewhere.
Neredbojias
> Yes, "equally challenging " is the exact term I was looking for
Thought so.
> > Is a stupid man unequal to a smart man?
>
> They are different so they are not equal. The stupid man may have other
> skills or talents that the smart man doesn't have.
Okay, they're not equal in talents and abilities, but are they equal in
intrinsic value? Most philosophies and religions say "Yes."
> They should ahve equal access to happiness, but it is up to them to utilize
> their talents to achieve it.
No argument from me. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, even in
a democratic society.
> I agree that something has to be doen to stop the more capable from
> exploiting the less capable, bu tthis applies way beyond disabilities. That
> is why I speak of empowerment. Empowerment leads to pride which leads to
> true freedom. If things are made too easy for people, they becomes slaves
> to their benefactor.
"Fattening the lamb for slaughter." Yes, I see your point, and it
applies to nations as well as the individuals who comprise them.
> The world isn't a fair place. People have to fight to earn their nut and
> the danger of not allowing them to fight is worse than the danger of not
> allowing them access. If people do not fight for themselves, they will be
> slaves to their protector
Absolutely agree. However, I think the goal is to reduce as much as
possible the amount of fighting required to maintain freedom and human
equality as a de facto method of life besides just a credo or hitherto-
unrealized right of existence. Of "The Law" they say (-something like),
"Well, it isn't perfect but it is the best system we have and it works."
I say that's double-talk and a good example of typical bullshit one might
expect particularly from lawyers. If it isn't perfect, at least *try* to
fix it. If I have to "fight to earn my nut", part of that fight will be
to eliminate or reduce the need for such fighting in the first place.
Anything else is illogical
> > Well, the line "They are not equals but neither is better than the
> > other," is probably just the same thing I'm saying in different words.
> > Maybe a good way to say it is "Everyone has an equal right to reap equal
> > benefits from equal efforts." The "equal efforts" part, though, must be
> > corrolated to the person as he or she is and do not necessarily connote
> > equal output or produce. Yeah?
>
> Why does this make sense to me :-) I agree with the exception of the
> output. Reward (money) is based upon output, if you do something because
> you want to and you are not good at it, then your financial reward will be
> low. if you do somethign that you are good at, you reward will be high.
> The point being that all people will succeed if they focus on what they are
> good at instead of atttempting to overcome something they aren't good at.
> In the case of people who need help to get to a point to realize their
> strengths, I am all for assistance, but it stops there. I suck at
> basketball, I will never make a living at it. A man in a wheelchair also
> sucks at basketball. Neither I nor the wheelchair bound should be
> encouraged to "be like Mike," because we cannot, we both suck at it.
Mike who? :)
Okay, sports have a value, but it is inflated and so over-promoted today
that this "value" has been devalued to almost nothing.
I admit that success requires more than just a good effort and not
everyone is or can be equally productive in every field. So in that
sense men are not equal. Perhaps they are potentially so but I doubt it
could be proven one way or the other.
> I agree that all people are equal in their rights. Their happiness is up to
> them to discover
> If only our nation could live up to it's social potential. The gap between
> the rich and the poor grows larger everyday and this prolonged market dump
> is quickly dissolving ghe middle class. Microsoft pays their employees
> poorly but gives them lots of stock options, Microsoft then takes those
> gifted stock options and gets a huge tax break. A $20 billion dollar
> company like MSFT pays 0 taxes because of this.
Yes, I think our socio-political outlooks are similar. What irks me is
that I think we've lost ground over the last 15-20 years or so, probably
because of declining resources. If that's true, what will things be like
in 2300? Or 3000? People (and nations) better wake up to some hard
facts real soon. A man may work harder than me, a man may be more
talented in my field than am I, but there is no one on this earth so much
better than I that he deserves 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 times and more the
available resources that I deserve and have available for my disposal and
there never was such a person no matter how ingenious or talented. That
is my belief, and if it's wrong then let's all just give up and let the
prodigies solve the problems. Actually, it's going that way now. They
will kill themselves in the end, though, because they are too short-
sighted to see the trees of need in the forest of challenge.