Hi Tom,
Thanks for the very interesting and insightful post. I agree with most of
what you wrote and will spare everyone the bandwidth of reposting that
which I agree with. However, a few questions:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, tom abeles wrote:
And, therein lies one of the problems in today's world
Hi Taran,
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Taran Rampersad wrote:
I'm really feeling sorry for the dead horse I've been beating, but it
seems it needs to run a few more laps.
Thanks, that made me laugh a lot :-)
That would be mobile phone - the future of computing is being discussed
on another email
Hi Steve,
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Steve Eskow wrote:
The divide is part of a larger situation. If technology enthusiasts
haven't the patience and the skill to study and take into account the
larger situation which will surround a new technology, they can do more
harm than good.
What
Thanks for your hospitality, Taran!
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, Jacky, but the problem of broadband penetration is a matter of
cost and telecommunications regulation. This has been mentioned more
than once at the CARICOM Internet
Xavier Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
many web 2.0 technologies employ xml xml evolved from sgml
one Charles Goldfarb's main motivations for developing sgml was to
make books more accessible to people with visual disabilities.
If this information is accurate, I'd be very interested in
Hi Norbert and All
Norbert, I am no way a specialist of universal design - I don't
design, let alone universally - so I hope others will answer your
question as to its use for fighting the discriminations you list
below. Tentatively, between your items:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Norbert
Chris Wilson wrote:
That would be mobile phone - the future of computing is being discussed
on another email list I participate on with the changed context that the
mobile phone brings.
In essence, the PC doesn't really know it's dead yet - partly because it
isn't dead *yet* and also
Would anybody have some information on companies offering video-conferencing
systems accessible for deaf people? Most current products do not allow for
deaf people to do lip reading and/or clearly see other people signing due to
the low number of frames per second those products allow.
I have
Those are good points. I may have made too strong of a connection
between Goldfarb's intentions and the intentions of Yuri Rubinsky.
The two did work closely together and you can get a sense of the ideas
they shared about sgml in this tribute that Goldfarb wrote:
