On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > 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? modern screen readers can handle text that is constantly changing. For example a streaming stock ticker. But yes - some would prefer IM mode and would switch to that. Many people who are not blind also prefer IM to RTT and would choose that. (First time I have heard IM as a downgrade from RTT. ) People who are deaf do not ever (that I have heard - and I interact with them a lot on this) object to being able to use IM or RTT. In fact many prefer IM while many others prefer RTT -- (and many prefer both - at different times/uses). THe only thing they object to is not being able to choose. Of having only one form available - especially if it isn't the one they - or people they know - prefer.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
