Re: PDF accessibility (was Re: N:Vision CFL's)

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms> wrote in message
news:MP6dnYIPq7EczZbbnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Now you see another problem that
> > severely sight-impaired folks have with
> > PDFs...
>
> What you've done here is to turn a discussion
> -- a meta thread, actually --

Are you complaining about a thread excursion you readily joined of your own
free will?  Really?  That's odd.

Let's recap on Planet Earth on how this discussion, no, this apparently
horrific new menace to Usenet Law&Ordert, the "meta thread" appeared.   I
simply mentioned, in passing, why *I* was likely not to download his PDF's.
Was that wrong?  Is that not allowed?  (-:

This "what I've done here" phrasing sounds as if you're about to initiate
prosecution against me "doing something" to Usenet when all that happened
was the normal thread drift that often occurs.  What's up with that?  I did
at least have the decency to rename the thread to protect those who are
looking for CFL data from having to wade through this miasma.  You're
picking up bad habits from somewhere, Bob. (-:

> about the relative merits of PDF and HTML into a discussion of
> what might be better suited to a tiny subset of  the population.

Tiny subset????  Thunk!  The trap door opens on the gallows of Usenet truth.
Call the Accuracy in Phrasing Police!  Read his Miranda rights!

Please take this *very* easy two question multiple choice test:

The percent of Americans ages 65 and older are visually impaired or blind
is:

A) .021 percent

B) .21 percent

C) 2.1 percent

D) 21 percent

The number of US veterans that have what are considered serious vision
impairments is:

A) 50,000

B) 100,000

C) 500,000

D) 1 million

Answers here: http://www.clb.org/rehab/index.html (Columbia Lighthouse for
the Blind)*

and

http://www1.va.gov/blindrehab/page.cfm?pg=4

> This is comparable to saying that because
> blind people cannot drive cars, everyone
> should walk.

Say what?!!!  I'm saying that if people are going to adapt an information
transfer technology like PDF's, perhaps they could adapt one that's both
non-proprietary and equally useful to the blind and sighted alike.  Maybe
all it takes is an add-on program for Adobe that converts PDF's into
*readable* HTML for webmasters short on time for that task.  That's about
three thousand light years from your stunningly simplistic assessment that
I'm somehow saying "don't drive because blind people can't."

> No slight against vision impaired folks is
> intended here.

Maybe not intended but labeling the sight impaired a "tiny subset" betrays a
basic lack of understanding of dimensions of the problem.  If you were aware
of the numbers and how they are growing because of the epidemic of diabetes
in the US, my feeling is that you'd hardly say "tiny subset" when describing
the visually impaired.  You'd also realize that many people reading this
will be facing serious vision problems in the next 30 years or less, so they
might want to start thinking about what they might do before it happens.

> The point is that what may
> be useful to a blind person may be far less
> useful to the sighted majority.

Go kiss your ($2500?) 24" Sony monitor and thank God he happened to make you
able to afford it and not even far-sighted or astigmatic or
acuity-challenged so that not even the biggest monitor in the world would
help you.

What am I saying and you are clearly not getting is why *not* adopt a
technology that serves both communities and is NON-proprietary?  Vista is
actually laying much of the groundwork for such a technology, but it will
doubtless be proprietary as well.  It doesn't need to be, however.

The number of US veterans diagnosed with low vision (an uncorrectable visual
impairment from 20/70 to 20/190) is currently estimated at one million plus.
The current estimated number of legally blind veterans in the United States
is more than 160,000 (De l?Aune, 2002) and the Iraq war has blinded many
more since then.

I would argue that while the net is a luxury to the sighted in many ways, it
has become a necessity and a lifeline to the sight impaired.  That should
give at least equal weight, and perhaps more, about their concerns with
PDFs.  Especially if an open standards alternative to PDF that accounts for
sight impairment can be found.  Adobe is diligently adding hooks for screen
readers and other assistive devices.  I suspect part of that is they were at
risk for being ineligible for Federal use if they didn't  Only time will
tell if their modifications will suffice.

--
Bobby G.

*Answers are D) 21% and D) 1 Million