The best solution is to have as close to full access as
practical to the operating systems that are used by the teaming
masses.  In the P.C. world, that is Microsoft Windows right now
and it is one of the biggest messes ever foisted off on the
public.  It is disguised as high-tech and revolutionary, but it
has no sacrosanct output mechanism so screen readers must be
built with a measure of what we might call Voodoo or spit and
bailing wire programming to try to retrofit what should be a
built-in ability.

        In the UNIX world, things are a little better in that
many people still use the command line and get real work done
with it.

        The graphical user interface for UNIX is several systems
that people refer to as X windows.  If you want to use a
state-of-the-art web browser for UNIX, you can use mozilla or a
port of Netscape.

        The problem there is that while groups of people have
worked on access to some of the X windowing systems, nothing for
mass circulation is ready for use yet so X is still not a
possibility.

        At least in UNIX, nobody in a suit is standing there with
outstretched hand and a jobs program for lawyers wanting money
every time one turns around.  The reason that access for blind X
users hasn't happened yet is that it is a huge problem.  All the
code and standards are public, but nobody has figured out how to
make it work in a useful way with screen readers.

        The point about raising the bar, etc, is a good example
of a syndrome in computing in which legacy is a dirty word.
If done right, web authoring tools should simply produce a server
that automatically "knows" what to do when faced with a browser
that doesn't script.

        The trouble with modern software is that it is passed off
as smart, but it is actually loaded with artificial stupidity.
Artificial stupidity is a distant relative of artificial
intelligence.  Unlike artificial intelligence, artificial
stupidity is unencumbered by having to try to learn anything
about its environment.  It is possible to write stupid software that works for
most people, most of the time.  What it can't do is read the
environment and modify its behavior based on what is actually
going on.  It is like an unattended bulldozer that has slipped in
to gear and is mowing down every object in its path.

        Stupid web servers fling javascript and every other cute
artifact of market-driven technology at anything that makes a
connection on tcp/ip port 80 whether it understands it or not.
Lynx isn't sacred because it is free, it is an existing
relatively simple solution to a problem.  It doesn't
relie on any undeveloped technology or anybody to sell the rights
to anything or anybody to buy anything.  It is already here and
is known to work with properly designed web sites that the
general public uses.

        Unless something truly amazing happens, it will probably
be years before X windows access is possible and all of us can
simply run Netscape or Mozilla.  It is possible that somebody may
add some code to Mozilla that lets it run as well as practical in
an ASCII text environment such as on a vt100 terminal, but here
we go dreaming again.

        Javascript and related technology is such a moving target
that access technology is never going to be able to keep up with
it using the present model so there needs to be a Plan B and that
is why it appears that lynx is sacred.  It's not.  It just
happens to be the least difficult method to get web access for
computer users who are blind.  Intelligent server software will
probably still have problems, but there is a difference between
having an occasional glitch and simply being locked out of more
and more sites.

        In closing, I do some programming in C and a few
different assemblers so I know something of what I am talking
about.  I have written my fair share of artificial
stupidity-laden programs and they are much easier to write than
good ones.  The only difference is that I can say "I am sorry."
and "oops.  I better not let that happen again."  Then its back
to the drawing board.  I don't care how neat something is
supposed to be.  If it causes trouble, then it isn't ready for
prime time yet.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group

Paul Chapin writes:
>I'm suggesting that we need to look at raising that common denominator.
>There is nothing fundamentally sacred about lynx. Its defacto use as a
>standard is based on nothing more profound than the fact that is free and
>therefore widely available.
>
>If we want people to make reasonable accommodation there needs to be
>reasonableness on both sides. It is not reasonable to assume people have
>spend big money on the latest and greatest software.  It is reasonable to
>assume people can get a copy of free software. And if as a designer I can
>assume that everybody can deal with JavaScript or can interpret a table
>correctly it makes my life as whole lot easier.