On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote: > > I am curious... do you also consider traditional (text only) email to also > be accessibility issues for the deaf because there's some action required > there to send a message? if so, why? if not, why? > > Email is not an accessibility issue. > It's only an accessibility issue because there are real-time conversational > methods of talking over XMPP (audio, video) but none existed for people like > me until now (i.e. XEP-0301).
So, if I understand what you are saying, from a base XMPP protocol perspective (an implement of RFC 6120 + RFC 6121), which has no real-time conversational modes, has no accessibility issues (at least for the deaf). The accessibility issue only arises when one support one real-time conversational methods such as audio or video but not RTT. > Suddenly, we now have the potential discrimination issue of software > permitting audio initations by default, but not being able to do RTT > initations by default. This is the discriminatory situation we want to > avoid. :-) I guess bandwidth-challedged XMPP networks should be fair and, if they want to block one real-tine conversation method, block them all. -- Kurt
