On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:44:11 -0500
William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Yes I would benefit from this change, but it is not a case of optimizing
> for one. It is a case of opening up the use of the wiki to the largest
> audiance possible. This is just good universal design.

Unfortunately,  my experience with wiki's indicates that's not really an
option we have.

There are lots of different formats, sure, but lots of those formats
reduce to being restrictive, declarative formats, where "content" is
stuffed into a range of formats predefined in the markups syntax.

This ultimately ends up *restricting* the range of *visual* tools at
our disposal for distinguishing details on a case-by-case basis, by
forcing all details to adhere to a universally simplified scheme.

While I do appreciate the difficulty presented to people with
sight-impairment, I'd opt primarily for choices that help them
*without* compromising the range of options we have for visual
distinguishers.

Just as it stands, a syntax that is represented as a simplification of
HTML via templates, where new terms can be created in terms of HTML,
and where raw HTML can be used in a pinch, tends to make the best of
these options for unimpaired people.

Its a shitty situation all round really, because as best as I can tell,
there's no choice without some painful compromise for somebody.

So while a universal design is an admirable goal, I fear in practice it
will have the same results as what "universal interfaces" achieve:

A reduction in net functionality because the more interesting/advanced
functionality is out of the reach of some users.

( Yes, yes, I'm aware of my sight-privilege talking )

Attachment: pgpJsb4iekax9.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to