[69173] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: CCO goes down the tubes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Mon Mar 29 10:59:57 2004
In-Reply-To:
<DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B0DB02C@server2003.arneill-py.sacramento.c
a.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:59:18 -0500
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 6:58 AM -0800 3/29/04, Michel Py wrote:
> > Maybe I'm the only one left who sees a need to be
>> able to check on things from a vt100 at a remote site.
>
>You are not. A telnet version without all the fluffy bullshit would be
>more than welcome.
>
I suppose it's trivial in the grand scheme of things, but on a fairly
small screen, I can'tget full access to the search without scrolling
to the right. We wouldn't want to reduce the priority of advertising
information display to the user who probably has already bought
equipment and has a question about it, would we?
Perhaps a nastier effect is that the more eye candy, the harder it is
to use disability access features. One of the incredibly positive
social effects of the Internet is that it is inclusionary, not
exclusionary.
The regrettable tendency of many enterprises to equate the Internet
with the latest and greatest in Web technology leads to both economic
and sensory exclusion. Personally, I resent having to buy new
hardware to run the new operating system that runs the new browser
that runs the latest plugin, in order to see straightforward
reference material [1]. In addition, the more visually intensive an
interface metaphor, the more difficult it is to adapt it to magnified
images, text-to-speech, or other things needed for people with visual
disabilities. The more mouse/trackball/pointing device intensive, the
more difficult it is to adapt to people with motor disabilities --
including the all-too-common repetitive stress injuries to hands.
