| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 01:26:51PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:44:11 -0500 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Yes I would benefit from this change, but it is not a case of optimizing |
| 6 |
> > for one. It is a case of opening up the use of the wiki to the largest |
| 7 |
> > audiance possible. This is just good universal design. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Unfortunately, my experience with wiki's indicates that's not really an |
| 10 |
> option we have. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> There are lots of different formats, sure, but lots of those formats |
| 13 |
> reduce to being restrictive, declarative formats, where "content" is |
| 14 |
> stuffed into a range of formats predefined in the markups syntax. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> This ultimately ends up *restricting* the range of *visual* tools at |
| 17 |
> our disposal for distinguishing details on a case-by-case basis, by |
| 18 |
> forcing all details to adhere to a universally simplified scheme. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> While I do appreciate the difficulty presented to people with |
| 21 |
> sight-impairment, I'd opt primarily for choices that help them |
| 22 |
> *without* compromising the range of options we have for visual |
| 23 |
> distinguishers. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That's the whole point of the discussion. |
| 26 |
Have you even looked at gollum for example? it can support mw markdown. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
William |
Archives