Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

simo <simo.sorce@...> wrote: [...]
> So I'd say that at least politely asking for such a version explaining
> in full detail what is the problem, making it clear that blind people
> have problems reading them in current form, will make a difference.

I agree it's worth a try (I've never tried on the UN) and keeping
notes on what happens, but I fear it won't do much good:

> And unless you find a very insensitive person on the other side it will
> rise the right questions inside the organization that publish these
> documents.

It sorrows me to say this about my current main trade, but most
webmasters must be very insensitive people, then!

Unless your disability is something they judge "real" or you are
willing and able to persecute them for it, most webmasters and
software developers seem not to care, as long as it works for them
with their abilities on their configuration of their browser.  This
year, I've had one webmaster citing bloody Ayn Rand at me in defence
of not fixing their colour choices!  Something about the designer
should not sacrifice their chosen colours for the good of others,
IIRC.

On a related note: GNU Mailman *still* doesn't set colours properly on
its web interface, last I saw - no, it wasn't the Mailman maintainer
who quoted Rand and yes, I have reported this bug and offered to help
fix it.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1054944&group_id=103&atid=100103
was more than 2 years ago now.  That's not uncommon: accessibility

Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

   On a related note: GNU Mailman *still* doesn't set colours properly
   on its web interface, last I saw - no, it wasn't the Mailman
   maintainer who quoted Rand and yes, I have reported this bug and
   offered to help fix it.
   http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1054944&group_id=103&atid=100103
   was more than 2 years ago now.

How about instead of whining, as you so often do, follow up on the
bug?  This would do more good than bitching on a mailing list that the
maintainers do not read.

   That's not uncommon: accessibility isn't usually taken seriously,
   even in GNU.  

Oh helvetica, it is taken seriously in the GNU project.  Maybe if you
properly followed up on the bugs it would be fixed sooner, the only
person that can be blamed is you, nobody else.

Cheers.

Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

   How about realising that "and offered to help fix it" is following up on 
   the bug.

Reporting it and then not doing anything for 2 years and bitching
about it here is not "following up on the bug".

Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@...> wrote:
>    http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1054944&group_id=103&atid=100103
>    was more than 2 years ago now.
>
> How about instead of whining, as you so often do, follow up on the
> bug?  This would do more good than bitching on a mailing list that the
> maintainers do not read.

I agree, and so that bug was emailed to the lead maintainer and to the
developers mailing list long before now.  Other people have also asked
after the bug (some last October, one this June) and still nothing.
Short of posting it in various other places that the maintainers
probably do not read, I don't see where to take it.  It's been in
their recommended bug tracker for two years, so some developer should
have seen it by now.

How about instead of flaming, actually suggesting new actions?  That
would do more good than vague suggestions to do what has already been
done.  Personally, I specify other mailing list software instead now
and put up with reconfiguring browsers each time I visit a site like
FSFE which runs unfixed pipermail.  (By the way, lists.gnu.org doesn't
use pipermail and individual list-admins can fix most listinfo pages
one by one, so it's not as big a problem there, but I doubt pipermail
was dropped for accessibility reasons.)

>    That's not uncommon: accessibility isn't usually taken seriously,
>    even in GNU.  
>
> Oh helvetica, it is taken seriously in the GNU project.  Maybe if you
> properly followed up on the bugs it would be fixed sooner, the only

Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 19:48 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    How about realising that "and offered to help fix it" is following up on 
>    the bug.
> 
> Reporting it and then not doing anything for 2 years and bitching
> about it here is not "following up on the bug".

That's right. Until he actually goes over to the US with a stick to beat
the developers over the head, mjr has no right to even _mention_ a bug
that he found, logged in the bugtracker and developed a fix for.

Back on topic: "opaque" PDFs are relatively common in many systems - for
example, many of the Groklaw court documents are effectively scans in
PDF format. I don't think it's a PDF issue per se, other than the fact
that we know the format is capable of better.

Cheers,

Alex.

Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

Mark, Mark, Mark, you are still bitching, how about doing something
about it instead of raising these issues on a list that none of the
mailman developers read?

Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

I was counting the seconds... and then...

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    On a related note: GNU Mailman *still* doesn't set colours properly
>    on its web interface, last I saw - no, it wasn't the Mailman
>    maintainer who quoted Rand and yes, I have reported this bug and
>    offered to help fix it.
>    http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1054944&group_id=103&atid=100103
>    was more than 2 years ago now.
>
> How about instead of whining, as you so often do, follow up on the
> bug?
How about realising that "and offered to help fix it" is following up on 
the bug.
>   This would do more good than bitching on a mailing list that the
> maintainers do not read.
>   
Now I am shocked. I question the sincerity of the maintainers, and 
wonder if they are the dedicated sort of GNU activists we ought to allow 
to work on such prestigious and essential systems. Perhaps a purge is 
needed. Or an inquisition.
>    That's not uncommon: accessibility isn't usually taken seriously,
>    even in GNU.  
>
> Oh helvetica, it is taken seriously in the GNU project.  Maybe if you
> properly followed up on the bugs it would be fixed sooner, the only
> person that can be blamed is you, nobody else.
>   
Perhaps that's true. Perhaps.

Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Mark, Mark, Mark, you are still bitching, how about doing something
> about it instead of raising these issues on a list that none of the
> mailman developers read?
>   

What about me? I was being rude to you on purpose, don't ignore me, please!

*sob*

Sam

Website accessibility (was: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format)

On 01-Nov-2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> Unless your disability is something they judge "real" or you are
> willing and able to persecute them for it, most webmasters and
> software developers seem not to care, as long as it works for them
> with their abilities on their configuration of their browser.

This is because the webmaster typically has no incentive to fix the
problem. They've got acceptance tests that have no input from you.
(That, in itself, is a big part of the problem, but it means you'll
get no traction until that changes.)

You should be making your case to the person who has an incentive for
such people to visit their site; typically the person who paid for it
to be created. Convince them that they can gain by a better site
design.

The webmaster isn't going to make that case for you, even though they
should. Or, they might *already* have made that case, but the website
customer just compared prices because there wasn't a clear negative
consequence of the inaccesible option.

--

-- 
 \          "I used to be an airline pilot. I got fired because I kept |
  `\       locking the keys in the plane. They caught me on an 80 foot |
_o__)                 stepladder with a coathanger."  -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney <ben@...>

On 01-Nov-2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> Unless your disability is something they judge "real" or you are

Re: [potentially OT] UN resolutions in opaque PDF format

I have, compared to you and MJ, I actually contacted one of the
maintainers about this bug.  But instead of doing that, you are
wasting everyones time with your slandours remarks and off-topic
ranting.  The same applies to MJ, who did not follow up on the bug.