Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Yes: Thunderbird archive (Score 1) 177

For me, problem #1 causes issues when downloading mailboxes/folders outside of Thunderbird in mbox format and then copying them into Thunderbird. The only solution I've found is going through imported folders to figure out which messages had problems (which requires checking against the original, uncorrupted messages), then downloading those individually and importing them (Thunderbird figures out what to do if you copy a single message in).

Problem #2 can be solved by unchecking all of the server-checking options, and then setting the mail server to

Comment Re:Fine with me (Score 2, Interesting) 420

...and AA compliance is really not difficult, unless you ignore accessibility until after you've finished designing a site.

So what you're saying is that compliance will be difficult for any site that was designed before the new rules (which will come out in a year or two) go into effect.

You can't ignore what doesn't currently exist, you can only ignore it after it exists.

If any of the sites I run falls under these requirements, they will probably have to come down, since I don't have time to go back and redo everything that has already been done. That means that people who can't currently get to my content still won't be able to, and those who can will lose it. That sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.

WCAG 2.0 has been out for two years. The revision to Section 508 will be based on it.

Comment Re:JAWS (Score 1) 420

The problem it the programes the read websites AKA JAWS plane out suck. The amount of extra code needed is a pain. Get Jaws to work and we are fine

Very little extra code is needed, unless you're referring to ARIA, which is necessary because rich content is extremely nonstandard. As a result, there's no way for assistive technologies to know what does what without a bit of extra code to make it clear.

Comment Re:Some businesses will buck any change... (Score 3, Informative) 420

...but I don't think most businesses (or most people, generally) have anything to object to here. What's likely to make people anxious about changes to the ADA is uncertainty over what those changes will involve.

As a web developer, my main concern is just knowing what I'll have to do or do differently. It would be helpful if articles like this -- or their summaries -- provided links to the proposed guidelines. Personally, I'd prefer to get a head start on this so that my clients and I don't end up rushing to implement changes as the last moment.

Here you go: WCAG 2.0 is what the upcoming revision to Section 508 is being based on.

Comment Re:Fine with me (Score 1) 420

That it takes a LOOOOOOOOOT more than a few alt tags, standard compliant markup and Flash that can be screen scraped to be ADA compliant. Its a freagin nightmare, and a lot of people who think they are compliant, are not, unless their web site is EXTREMELY simple.

For all practical purpose, its impossible to ACTUALLY be compliant. They're just a bit soft over it...

No, it isn't. We're effectively talking about WCAG 2.0 here (the revision to Section 508 that should come out in a year or two is being based on it), and AA compliance is really not difficult, unless you ignore accessibility until after you've finished designing a site. A little forethought and it's easy as pie.

Comment Re:how much does it cost? (Score 1) 236

Where I went to vote, anyone who wished had the option of bringing an assistant. I recall doing this for my grandmother when her health was failing. She couldn't see well enough to read the ballot much less fill in a circle. So, I would read the ballot to her, and she would tell me what to mark.

I'm all for throwing money at math and CS (it keeps me employed), but I still think that E-voting is unnecessary. Just use paper. With paper, the ballots can be recounted in front of a group of representative for each side whenever there is a dispute. It's simple and crystal clear to the vast majority of voters. The only disadvantage is that it's slow, but so what? Voting is important, we can afford to slow down a little and do it carefully.

So people with disabilities do not have the right to an anonymous vote, but you do? What about people who don't have a friend or relative to bring with them? Should they just trust whoever volunteers to help them, even though they have no way to verify whether or not they're voting correctly on their behalf?

Comment Re:how much does it cost? (Score 1) 236

Agreed, E-voting is the classic solution in search of a problem.

Unless you have a disability, in which case it is the classic "solution to a problem". GP: "marking a circle with a pen" is impossible for someone who is blind or has dexterity issues. Whether or not e-voting would currently benefit other people is irrelevant; it is needed, and that need is growing.

Slashdot Top Deals

PL/I -- "the fatal disease" -- belongs more to the problem set than to the solution set. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5