Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:24:41 -0700, Chaddy2222
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Hmmm well it's not really, as you do need a plug-in to view Flash and
> >a lot of people can't use it.
> WRONG! You need a browser to view a website and a computer to go
> online and an Internet connection to visit a site, so really, out of
> all that, installing Flash is pretty much the EASIEST part of the
> equation and the one that requires the LEAST amount of effort. Flash
> installs itself automagically in just a few seconds on a broadband
> connection with no more than a couple clicks from the user. And what
> do you mean a lot of people can't use it? Flash works on pretty much
> ANYTHING, unless you're some idiot running some obscure hardware and
> software combination like a PowerPC running Linux...although even then
> there are work arounds to get Flash to work.
Ha, most linux users are nerds who would not give a rats about Flash
anyway, I reckon i'd go for a Mac before I even considered installing
> >Did you not read what I wrote about me
> >not being able to read any of your sites content with my screen reader
> >(text to speech software). I would need to actually disable Flash to
> >read your site that way.
> Um, hello, the only time you would be using a screen reader is IF YOU
> WERE FUCKING BLIND! And if you were blind...why in the fuck would you
> have Flash enabled?
Well actually I do have a bit of vision (I would say that only a small
percentage of blind people are actually totally blind.)
> I mean maybe if you wanna try and claim you're simply illiterate...
> *rolls eyes*
Haha, funnally enough through reading some of my posts I do get a bit
concerned about some of my spelling at times.
Although often it's just quicker especially when doing research to
have stuff read allowed then to spend time reading it off the screen.
> Further, if it was THAT important to you, why wouldn't you simply copy
> the text portions and paste them into say Notepad?
I do that (or at least did that at one point with PDF's before addobie
fixxed the reader).
I offten do that as well, it's bloody amaizeing the amount of sites
that do not have any navigation once you do that though. They the
designers are to cluless to provide a simple list of links to the same
content (which would take about 2 mins useing an include file.)
> detecting the presence of Flash, it's detecting the presence of
> disable Flash.
Yeah, that sounds like a thing.
> >Admitedly the developers of the text to
> >speech packages could do more work in that area, especially with more
> >music / band websites being Flash based.
> And everything else being Flash based. Really, the problem isn't with
> Flash, the problem is with those third party software developers who
> are simply lazy fucking antediluvian bastards. I mean if Google can
> setup their search engine to spider all the text content in a Flash
> file...yeah, anybody can do it, there is no excuse. Of course there
> is also blame to be put on the USERS who WANT that functionality since
> it's largely up to you to contact those third party vendors and tell
> them what functionality you're looking for. If they get enough people
> asking for it, they'll develop it.
Very true, although they seam to think that us blind computer users
are computer iliteret gits who do not need to install new hardware or
re-format our systems.
So they give us five licence keys and once they run out expect us to
pay $2000 or near enough to that price for new software.
The anoying part about that is (they give you even lestt keys with the
newer versions, my current software has lasted me about 4 years
though. Although the price for the Jaws software has dropped a bit
which I am happy with.
> >Oh and I do agree with your ideas in that article.
> Yay, you read it, congratulations you're not retarded.
Thanks, that's reassuring!.
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz