On Jun 29, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Winfried Tilanus wrote: > On 06/29/2012 04:00 PM, Edward Tie wrote: > > Hi, > >> If you talk but you think what you have talk wrong..and you hear what >> you say.. It will be same for deaf peoples. > > First: I don't think we should regard RTT as an accessibility thing or a > 'deaf spec'.
I don't. I think of RTT simply as a nearer real-time chat option for XMPP IM. I'm about concerned about the implications of some Mark's comment. > It's a real issue that I am concerned about -- vendors implementing RTT but > then not advertising RTT in clients that already has audio/video. I have to wonder if vendors offer RTT without offering A/V, will there be claims made against them for discrimination because they didn't offer A/V. RTT, I would think, would have some users with disabilities. I have to wonder how well do screen readers for the blind, for instance, deal with RTT. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have to downgrade to traditional XMPP IM. But I note that arguments were made that downgrade to traditional XMPP IM simply was unacceptable for the deaf for software offering A/V. So I'm wondering, what do those who understand well accessibility issues think here, if software supports RTT, does it also need to support A/V? -- Kurt
