It does not look good for Target. Web Accessibility news

[Travis Newbury]

There are some things common to almost all trolls - like trying to
change the subject when you pin them down.

Jerry, Please tell me how I changed the subject. Or better yet,
please aske me the qyuestion you say I am trying so hard to avoid.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him repeatedly to
come up with some facts. He refuses and tries to change the subject.
That is troll behavior. Plain and simple.

Plain and Simple, state the question I am trying to avoid.

 

[Travis Newbury]

It is terrible, I have a whole hard disk full of Travis's
collection (not his fault, I just hoard and collect stuff...)

Cool. An entire hard disk of my philosophy. A few facts you are
wrong about, First I am not a republican. They are almost as bad as
democrats. Both want to give my hard earned money away, the
difference is who they want to give it to. I consider myself a
Republicratarian (kind of a mix of republican democrat and
libritarian.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I prefer girls, but thanks for the offer

So Do I! See another way we are alike...

 

[Ben C]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:11:15
GMT SpaceGirl scribed: [...]

Proprietary is not always bad though. Look at the mess of the browser
market - not ONE browser meets the specifications the browser
manufactures agreed. Even worse than that, each implements most of the
standards slightly differently. Flash works the same everywhere, on
almost all platforms. If only Open software could even come close to
that. This is the problem though: There are a lot of very smart geeks
in the world and they all have their own arrogant belief that their
way is best, without actually thinking about Users. This is another
reason why so much OS software is horrible to look at. Created by
programmers, who can only think like programmers.

Average folks aren't programmers - or designers for that matter.

[...]
Despite its nostaglic exigency, html/css does seem very much like a
dead end in the future - especially with the browser-barons' lack of
concordance.

No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
a bit suspect.

The reasons for the differences between browsers are not open standards,
but the fact that the situation is still recovering from a nasty period
of browser wars between makers of proprietary software.

It's got nothing to do with geeks not understanding Users either. The
W3C standards and specifications are a compromise between trying to
explain what browsers already do and steering them towards a common
direction. They are doing a good job.

There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now: some of
them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs; and the specs
are so complicated (mostly because of all the historical baggage) that
in places they aren't always that easy to follow. But this improves with
every new draft as things get pointed out and clarified.

I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
about catching up.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Ok, I will tell you and prove it too. But first I need your help.
Please tell me, how he can compare the speed of building a site with
HTML/CSS against building the same site in flash, when he has no clue
how to build it in flash? The answer is he can't. Just like you can
not tell me who can run a 5K faster. You may have an OPINION about
who can run it faster, but your OPINION is meaningless because you
haven a clue how fast I can run a 5K.


Just what is the question I am evading?

I have not much of an idea of what Jerry is talking about eather. But
speaking of questions, how exactly would you know what I can and can't
do? Considering that you don't even know me??????
While it may or may not be quicker to do it in Flash, it would cost a
lot less in legal fees to just do it in HTML, sure it gets rid of a
lot of things but if this Target case goes ahead those type of sites
will be screwed. Also considering the previous case law on web
accessibility it sets a pressident (spelling). It's been a few years
since I did legal studies.
Well yes, but you can't really pass judgement on what I may or may not
know eather (although it's probably obvious to an extent from looking
at my site).
BTW, I think with the changes in web technologies my skills will
continue to change over time.
As an example of this a few years ago I did not even know what CSS or
HTML was!.

Are you really this lost?


Of course you are...

Isn't everyone!.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:29:05 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

Cool. An entire hard disk of my philosophy. A few facts you are
wrong about, First I am not a republican. They are almost as bad as
democrats. Both want to give my hard earned money away, the
difference is who they want to give it to. I consider myself a
Republicratarian (kind of a mix of republican democrat and
libritarian.

You ought to join the Whigs (-although their conventions are a little
hairy.)

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Nope. Brining it back to the original subject, troll.

So, you are saying, it is a non-troll thing to do to go back to
an earlier subject when a person does not want to pursue a
particular side thread of a thread but that one who does want to
pursue a side thread and stay on it is a troll? Methinks this
troll attribution is a murky quantity <g>
[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that when trolls are pinned down, they try to change the
subject and otherwise deflect the conversation.

Trolls are also good at misquoting and taking out of context.

This describes you perfectly, troll.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Plain and Simple, state the question I am trying to avoid.

Read back through the messages. I have challenged you at least three
times. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

If you can't read, troll, then that's your problem.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Ok, I will tell you and prove it too. But first I need your help.
Please tell me, how he can compare the speed of building a site with
HTML/CSS against building the same site in flash, when he has no clue
how to build it in flash? The answer is he can't. Just like you can
not tell me who can run a 5K faster. You may have an OPINION about
who can run it faster, but your OPINION is meaningless because you
haven a clue how fast I can run a 5K.

And you tell me what that has to do with his opinion - or your refusal
to answer.

You're just a troll trying to deflect the question.

Just what is the question I am evading?


Are you really this lost?


Of course you are...

Answer the question, troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

I have not much of an idea of what Jerry is talking about eather. But
speaking of questions, how exactly would you know what I can and can't
do? Considering that you don't even know me??????

Pretty easy, Chaddy. Travis claims your statement is irrelevant because
you don't know what he's talking about. But he refuses to refute it.

He's just trying to deflect the conversation because you have a a valid
point. Just like a troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:18:00 GMT
Ben C scribed:

No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
a bit suspect.

Nonsense? Okay, we'll see.

The reasons for the differences between browsers are not open standards,
but the fact that the situation is still recovering from a nasty period
of browser wars between makers of proprietary software.

I wasn't arguing cause but that the browsers overall ability to perform is
essentially decrepit.

It's got nothing to do with geeks not understanding Users either. The
W3C standards and specifications are a compromise between trying to
explain what browsers already do and steering them towards a common
direction. They are doing a good job.

Oh, ho ho! Here's where we patently disagree. I believe they are doing a
totally horseshit job - particularly in those areas where they include
statements something like "...the useragent may determine how it responds
to this condition by..." When one endeavors to set standards, there is no
place for ambiguity. In addition, their box model sucks and the whole
"dom" thing (as now implimented) will in the future be looked upon as some
quirky digital primeval foible.

There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now: some of
them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs; and the specs
are so complicated (mostly because of all the historical baggage) that
in places they aren't always that easy to follow.

Despite the "good job" the w3c is doing?? Gosh!

But this improves with
every new draft as things get pointed out and clarified.

Yeah, and possibly by the year 2142 or so they may get it halfway right.

I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
about catching up.

Sandbagging equates to deliberacy but in MS's case I think the reason is
simply bucks. There's no real money in it. The ironic thing is that the
stuff they _do_ put an effort into usually fails even more dramatically.
Here is an excerpt from a discussion I ran across between some programmers
regarding certain Webapp facilities:

<quote>"It is a damn nightmare getting a standalone application installed
on the client side. It is simply much easier to install browser-based
applications using technology such as Flex than any technology that
Microsoft has so far come up with. I still have nightmares over failed .Net
installs that would take out other client applications when trying to
install our own software in my previous job."</quote>

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:45:00
GMT SpaceGirl scribed:

£35 per month ($70 US), but that includes all data, 200 minutes, 200
texts, plus £270 ($540) for the phone. There are no other charges on
18 month contract.

Hmm, a bit cheaper in the US. (8gb iPhone: $399; all data, 450 mins, 200
texts: $59.99)

So yeah, very expensive, but worth it IMO!

I keep forgetting how much women like to yak...

 

[Chaddy2222]

Pretty easy, Chaddy. Travis claims your statement is irrelevant because
you don't know what he's talking about. But he refuses to refute it.

He's just trying to deflect the conversation because you have a a valid
point. Just like a troll.

True. I can gather from reading his posts that he has got no
experience developing real world systems that people need to actually
use: Anyone with three quarters of a brain and who studies current
trends of how web surfing habits are going, would realise that people
are blocking things like Flash and JS more and more due to anoying and
offten moronic things that designers like to use them for!.
Until Addobie begin complying with DDA regulations in a number of
countries you can forget about useing Flash as a viable method of
delivering web content for the majority of websites!.
I am not talking about accessibility just in regards to blind people
by the way, I am talking about the general useability of Flash itself.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Only because you don't understand the technology though. Flash doesn't
need to be fancy. Sometimes it can offer something small and more
efficient than HTML+CSS. While generally I'd agree that there are some
things you shouldn't really try have Flash do, completely writing it off
is terribly short sighted unless you are a secret Flash genius and know
without a doubt "it won't work". Flash is -so- powerful these days, you
can create practically anything in it (you could, for example, write
your own web browser INSIDE Flash if you wanted); I know as a Flash
person I'm not smart enough to say exactly where Flash's boundaries lay.

You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
example of this too)

 

[Chaddy2222]

You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
example of this too)

Nor have I really.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
example of this too)

Yes, If the content is basically all text, then there is no advantage
to using flash, with the single exception if you want to present that
text in a highly graphical stylized manner.

Making the content accessible is NOT a huge effort on the part of the
Flash developer. It is little more than flipping a switch. So that
is not the issue. The issue is that most Flash developers (thread
contributors excluded) don't care about accessibility.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Read back through the messages. I have challenged you at least three
times. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
If you can't read, troll, then that's your problem.

ok, so I did answer your question and now it is you that is avoiding
it.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Even if they use frames?

Not condoning the use of frames in any way, but yeah. Even slapped in
frames one can resize the text, use a keyboard to navigate, use a screen
reader, and although not always straight forward navigate with Lynx.

Now www.mortgagenews2.com in Lynx your get...

<output>
Mortgage News 2.0 uses Adobe's latest Flash Player (9). This update
provides advanced security features over earlier versions and is
required by sites top like "YouTube", "MySpace", etc. Please upgrade
your player here:
Download Now
(No restart is necessary).
</output>

 

[Travis Newbury]

True. I can gather from reading his posts that he has got no
experience developing real world systems that people need to actually
use:

Yea, Cartoon network, CNN, Turner, Disney, ABC Sports, GA Tech,
Siemens, AT&T, Chick-fil-a, Snoop Dog, Aerosmith, Rockapella, and
Atlanta Sports Council. (Can you tell I am based out of Atlanta?) Each
of these sites use Flash content (mostly flash video and video
manipulation) I created. (Read back, this is what I specialize in) I
believe these are considered real world systems that people use every
day.

Anyone with three quarters of a brain and who studies current
trends of how web surfing habits are going, would realise that people
are blocking things like Flash and JS more and more due to anoying and
offten moronic things that designers like to use them for!.

Why yes, that is the trend we are seeing... (There was some sarcasm in
there)

Until Addobie begin complying with DDA regulations in a number of
countries you can forget about useing Flash as a viable method of
delivering web content for the majority of websites!.
I am not talking about accessibility just in regards to blind people
by the way, I am talking about the general useability of Flash itself.

Chaddy you and jerry are pretty much ignorant when it comes to Flash
aren't you?