RE:for educational purposes...

["Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC" <Norman B Robinson usps gov>]

Dave,

	Your post is confusing as it mixes several different ideas.
Since it is somewhat unclear it fails to educate (if that was indeed
your intent).

	I've tried to pull out the relevant points:
	Point #1. "it's important to be able to use Braille alone, i.e.
without concurrent speech, because my sound card is preoccupied doing
something else."
	
	Response to #1: I agree and this seems technically feasible, so
why not do it?
	
	Point #2. "My whole point is that we shouldn't limit the design
of accessibility software 
		a. just because we can comfortably assume that all of
its potential users have access to enough hardware and/or money, to
ideal work environments, etc." to the referenced "able to direct speech
to one card while playing your radio with the other.  Can this be done?"
	
	Response to #2: I don't think we have enough context to say your
author was limiting anything. As this is somewhat a technical list, what
is "enough hardware" (#2a)? Not trying to argue, but is there a baseline
requirements document for the specific technology you are referring to?
(Braille interface, gnome-api, etc.) Why should you limit my
<emphasis>ability</emphasis> to use both soundcards I have in my machine
just because most people only have one? Again, not to argue but debate;
When the user asked "Can this be done" was it a yes, but you should
consider most users won't want that, so design for both situations? I
encourage you to document, reference specifications or use-cases that
enforce what seems to be your goal of not having to have the
latest-greatest or excessive hardware. I'm with you on that - it gets
expensive no matter how much money one has!

	I hope this message was helpful, as I sincerely didn't
understand it until I read it twice. Maybe you can help and my two cents
helps you as well.

	Regards,

	Norman Robinson 

	

-----Original Message-----
From: gnome-accessibility-list-bounces gnome org
[mailto:gnome-accessibility-list-bounces gnome org] On Behalf Of Dave
Mielke
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 9:50 AM
To: Gnome Accessibility Users
Subject: Re: FW: [g-a-devel] AT-SPI, focus leaving and window IDs


Here's a reply on this thread which was sent to me privately. I've
deleted its author's name, but have chosen to forward its text to the
list because it's yet another clear illustration of how easy it is to
make assumptions. I'm sure that many, if not most, who subscribe to this
list already agree, but, for the benefit of those who don't yet get it,
the following is intended for educational purposes. There are no excuses
for limiting the functionality of accessibility software, which
primarily exists to make computing environments as equally available to
all as they already implicitly are to those who can see, hear, and move
all at the same time, just because it's easy, comfortable, or convenient
for those of us who are reasonly well off to assume that all of our
users have been equally blessed.

The following, in order to establish context, is in reference to my
statement that, in my personal situation, it's important to be able to
use braille alone, i.e. without concurrent speech, because my sound card
is preoccupied doing something else. Here's what was written to me:

>Hi, in the below case  what is needed is to be able to direct speech to

>one card while playing your radio with the other.  Can this be done? If

>not sounds like some thing to work on.

Now, here's my response:

Another assumption. The computer under discussion only has one sound
card in it. So why don't I put second one into iT? It has no free slots.
So why don't I replace that card with one which has two channels?  With
a family the size of mine, i.e. nine children still at home, I have much
more important things, i.e. people, to spend my money on, and we're a
single income family, i.e. my wife is a lady who still rightly believes
that the proper place for a mother is at home raising her children. My
whole point is that we shouldn't limit the design of accessibility
software just because we can comfortably assume that all of its
potential users have access to enough hardware and/or money, to ideal
work environments, etc. They don't.

-- 
Dave Mielke