| 1 |
On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:44:11 -0500 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Yes I would benefit from this change, but it is not a case of optimizing |
| 5 |
> for one. It is a case of opening up the use of the wiki to the largest |
| 6 |
> audiance possible. This is just good universal design. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Unfortunately, my experience with wiki's indicates that's not really an |
| 9 |
option we have. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
There are lots of different formats, sure, but lots of those formats |
| 12 |
reduce to being restrictive, declarative formats, where "content" is |
| 13 |
stuffed into a range of formats predefined in the markups syntax. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This ultimately ends up *restricting* the range of *visual* tools at |
| 16 |
our disposal for distinguishing details on a case-by-case basis, by |
| 17 |
forcing all details to adhere to a universally simplified scheme. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
While I do appreciate the difficulty presented to people with |
| 20 |
sight-impairment, I'd opt primarily for choices that help them |
| 21 |
*without* compromising the range of options we have for visual |
| 22 |
distinguishers. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Just as it stands, a syntax that is represented as a simplification of |
| 25 |
HTML via templates, where new terms can be created in terms of HTML, |
| 26 |
and where raw HTML can be used in a pinch, tends to make the best of |
| 27 |
these options for unimpaired people. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Its a shitty situation all round really, because as best as I can tell, |
| 30 |
there's no choice without some painful compromise for somebody. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So while a universal design is an admirable goal, I fear in practice it |
| 33 |
will have the same results as what "universal interfaces" achieve: |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
A reduction in net functionality because the more interesting/advanced |
| 36 |
functionality is out of the reach of some users. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
( Yes, yes, I'm aware of my sight-privilege talking ) |
Archives