I missed at least one. I could also replace the existing WS467 with a SPST relay with a low-voltage coil. That would require running low-voltage control wire back to the HA center and a new switch box for local low-voltage control. And finding a code compliant relay.
Note that doing the same thing with an 120 VAC (instead of
Read the actual text?? The actual text is:
"They're completely over-used, IMHO, by folks too lazy to create an HTML page"
Robert: Now you are arguing with yourself, not me. What you wrote is unambiguous.
Wow. Responding to your calling me and a bajillion other people "lazy" is "below the belt".
I simply respond to the English words that you write.
Wow. I am legally blind without my glasses and have large monitors to help me with using the computers which includes making pdfs. In many circumstances, they are absolutely the very best solution available.
One of my hats is Chairman of an county-wide elected Board. We publish a newsletter that we are very proud of. It is available for download on our web site, we mail out a couple of thousand hard copies to people who ask for it, and because it is pdf, can also easily print it one-off if requested.
If you wanted our newsletter expanded so that each page is 11x17 instead of
8-1/2 x 11, we would eagerly and immediately do so. We can do that _*BECAUSE*_ it is a pdf.We do NOT use pdf because we are lazy, and if came to one of the 24 public meeting each year of our Board and tri-county EXCOMs over which I typically preside and said so, you would ....[grumble, mumble...]
As a government entity we comply with the letter and spirit of all open meeting and disabilities acts and other important interactions with voters and residents including children and adults.
You on the other hand seem not to actually have any public responsibilities and instead take endless potshots at those who do.
{rest deleted]
You really are outta control.
Get some sleep. Having puppies should be fun. Sounds like they have you frazzled
Take Care ... Marc (really) Marc_F_hult
restored!!!!]
My mistake. You did quote me correctly. The text was jumbled and I didn't even recognize my own words ;-) Even this new thread is an imbroglio.
... Marc Marc_F_Hult
restored!!!!]
recycling
LOL ... Bobby did quote me correctly.
Even this brand-new post is such an imbroglio that my own words are unrecognizable.
I either have to take even more time to fix posts that others have left a mess, or stop responding at all.
Ah.. where are the pdf's when you need them ? ;-)
... Marc Marc_F_Hult
I am curious to know why your experience with PDF's seems so positive compared to the sight impaired people I know (including me) who quite literally despise PDFs (at least when compared to equivalent HTML documents viewed on a normal PC monitor side by side with or without the use of reader software or other adaptive devices*). The American Foundation for the Blind doesn't quite despise them, but this article answers most of your questions about why the sight impaired, though obviously not you, prefer HTML to PDF:
-- Bobby G.
*ridiculously redundant explanation supplied for those so aptly described at:
I have no idea why you have problems viewing PDFs. If I can't read a PDF I just click "+" to enlarge it. Usually when it's at full screen width I can read it.
Unlike HTML, when I enlarge a PDF file the images remain in the same place in relation to the text. The images also enlarge in direct proportion to the text. If the source image was high resolution the enlarged image is much better, too.
There is a significant difference between poor eyesight and blindness. "Screens" for the blind are actually, text units which raise electo-magnetic rods to "display" one line of Braille at a time. TTBOMK, they don't work well with anything but text. Note, however, that it has been some time since I saw a Braille PC monitor. It is entirely possible that things have changed since then.
That said, it is inappropriate to use the extreme needs of blind users to try to denigrate the value of a medium designed for sighted persons.
I'm currently using a 24" Sony flat screen (LCD) monitor set for 1600 x 1200 pixels and 32-bit color.
On my desktop there are currently 16 PDF files from which I am in the process of extracting text and images for my HTML-based web pages. I use HTML for the pages because it is more suited to my shopping cart system. However, I get most of my technical documents in PDFs format.
Face it, Bobby. On this subject you are deep in the minority. The vast majority of developers prefer to create technical docs in PDF. There's no laziness in doing it either. I've create PDFs for online contracts. It's a lot of work getting them just right but the results are well worth the effort.
I marked it clearly "Bad X-10" in magic marker on the base. I might use it to test x-10 filters etc.
OK, now I understand. I wasn't aware that you had impaired vision. HTML does display better with large text, flowing to fill the screen width and only requiring verical scrolling whereas PDF requires horizontal and vertical scrolling at high magnification. For anything I really want to study, I print the page(s) of interest and that usually works much better with PDF as opposed to HTML.
As for security, I think any added risks are minor and even then most are traced back to scripting and HTML is extremely vulnerable to that risk also.
I usually right-click on PDF URLs and download them rather than open them in a browser. It just takes too long to open them in a browser.
Unfortunately, more and more things are only available as PDF so I will probably continue to cite them.
I don't see any obstacle to using a single 60 watt n:vision outside with a WS467 based on my previous confirmation that the lamps will start at 0F. They are rated to -20F , presumably with some loss of output at that temperature. How much loss will depend in part on the lamp enclosure and how well it helps to retain the heat of the lamp. Note that the lamps I report on are not actually rated for outdoor use, but IIRC, some n:vision CFLs are.
Here are some results of testing the 60, 100, and 150 watt 2700K spiral n:vision CFL with 2-wire X-10 wall switches used in ON-OFF mode. The test room has two ceiling cans and two wall sconces. I added the sconces this winter to improve the overall quality and mood of the room lighting. Testing and using CFLs in this room is just part of meeting sometimes competing objectives of making the lighting in our home smarter, more efficient, more functional and more aesthetically pleasing.
I used a X10 brand WS467 (date sticker missing but probably ~2001) and a Stanley 360-059 (Oct 1998 date code) 3-wire ("Master") used in two-wire mode.
Lamps used (in incandescent equivalents) and number tried simultaneous:
n:Vision 60 watt 2700K (up to 4 lamps simultaneously) n:Vision 100 watt 2700K (up to 2 lamps used simultaneously) n:Vision 150 watt 2700K (1 only) Philips PAR incandescent 120 watt (1 only) Sylvania incandescent 60 watt (1 only) Philips PAR incandescent 75 watt (1 only)
Two of the fixtures are open-top wall sconces in which the lamps are horizontal which is almost as good as base down with respect to heat distribution. The insulated ceiling cans are close to worst case with respect to heat damaging the electronics in the base.
1) With either incandescent in one of the sockets, every combination of fluorescents worked fine (maximum 3 fluorescents with total of 350 watts) 2) With: Four 60 watt fluorescents Loud buzz from switch Three 60 watt fluorescents Distinct buzz Two 60 watt fluorescents Faint buzz One 60 watt fluorescent almost inaudible 3) adding 1.0 millihenry choke (measured at 120 and 1000hz) wound with 15AWG on core of unknown composition to the four CFL setup caused the lamps to strobe (seeming close to full ON-OFF (This toroidal inductor is smaller than a cake donut but larger than a Tom Thumb.)I don't have any convenient way of dimming X-10 at this time, but my experience dimming mixed incandescent + fluorescent (CFL and conventional) is that they dim with very different curves and so only coincidentally work well in an actual home lighting settings. (It is possible that one might want one area dimmed faster than another.)
I was going to try a smaller debuzzing coil, find a smaller incandescent and rig up an X-10 dimmer but ran out of time.
I know from other setups that I could use INSTEON dimmers or switches on all four n:vision 60 Watt CFLs, but as explained elsewhere, the switch wiring in this room only has two wires (missing hot) so INSTEON cannot be installed without rewiring.
I left the room set up with three 60 watt 2700K fluorescents and one 60 watt incandescent. The light color and distribution blend perfectly. If priorites allow me to rewire the switch to INSTEON or hard-wired, I'll be able to replace the fourth lamp with CFL. Till then I'll live with the one incandescent knowing that I reduced power consumption by substituting CFLs in three out of four incandescents with absolutely no negatives that I can see or hear.
The ~$5.50 total cost for the three CFLs will pay for itself quickly. They have a nine year warranty as used in this room and the 800-number is on the base.
So I have met three out of four improvement goals and will advance the fourth goal by making them even smarter as time permits.
... Marc Marc_F_Hult
conventional)
To clarify: and extend:
1) The results for three, two and one CFLs in parallel shown above are with no incandescent and none cause noticeable flicker (in my eyes).2) A single 60 watt works fine. A single 100 watt is not entirely symptomatic (some slight flicker?). Without an incandescent load, the 150 watt flickers badly. This implies different electronics in the various wattage lamps because the 180 and 249 "watt-equivalents" of three and four
60-watt lamps used in parallel circuit do not flicker. I won't have time to get a scope on this or do much more till May.3) All tests were with a 2-wire X-10 WS467 or equivalent. The fix of adding an incandescent to make these switches work with conventional fluorescents has been known and practiced for years. This is simply an extension of that conventional trick to CFLs.
... Marc Marc_F_Hult
Oh.
One might assume anyone running at 1600 by 1200 is NOT incredibly sight-impaired, at least in a way that affects the ability to read PDFs on a normal PC setup.
The 24" monitor, as you probably know, is not something that's very common, either. Most sight-impaired people I know (including me) can't *possibly* see anything on a normal 17" desktop monitor when running above 800 by 600 (and many even struggle in that mode. But you can hardly run any modern programs at any lower resolution.
Of course you don't have to pan and scan with that kind of display real estate! People without that kind of hardware or who are unable to read the screen at anything higher than 800 by 600 obviously do. It's just a guess, but I suppose having myopia (nearsightedness) is somewhat less of a handicap when reading fine detail on the screen than having diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration or any number of other eye diseases that affect overall visual acuity. Most of the legally blind people I know can barely afford a second-hand PC and the cost for dialup, let alone a 24" monitor! If they have extra money to spend, they seem to opt for screen readers, especially if their impairment is degenerative, because they know that eventually, even a Jumbotron won't help them to see better.
-- Bobby G.
Now you see another problem that severely sight-impaired folks have with PDFs. Printing out a PDF is usually not very helpful to them unless it's in Braille. (-: Since my vision's not that bad, it's what I resort to most of the time, but it's an awful waste of paper. I'll be the first to admit both approaches have their problems but just on general principles I'd rather the technology be something that's included in the WWW standards, not a proprietary tack-on. There's been some real progress in Vista regarding vision impairment aids:
"GDI's bitmapped nature causes all sorts of issues. One that will be a problem, "RSN," is that it's essentially pixel-oriented. Programs will draw a line that is, say, two pixels wide, or text that's ten pixels tall. In times gone by that didn't matter. Dots were about the same size on any screen you used?about 1/96". But that's not the case today; laptop LCDs will often have dots around 1/120" in size, and the very highest-end LCDs have dots measuring just 1/200". If you use your old pixel-based measurements on a screen like that everything looks tiny, only a quarter of the size you expected it to be. Though one can work around this and perform appropriate scaling, most applications don't because their developers would have to perform all the corrections by hand. So instead, if you use high resolutions, you'd better get used to tiny graphics. This problem doesn't just face rich people with fancy monitors; similar issues are faced when printing. Even cheap printers have a resolution much higher than that of a screen. And clean scaling is, for obvious reasons, a boon to the partially sighted."
Another page in the Vista review
"Another practical repercussion of using vector graphics is with "magnifier"-type applications; those utilities that enlarge some area of the screen (typically that part under the mouse) as an aid to the partially sighted. Such utilities have been available for Windows for years, and the OS even ships with a simple magnification tool. But they all share a common characteristic: the magnified portion of the screen is ugly. Because it's magnifying a bitmap, such tools look blocky. The normal text may appear nice and crisp, but the magnified version is awash with jagged lines and bumpy diagonals: [see image at site] Not so in Vista. The magnifier shows a scaled-up version of the screen, looking as sharp as the regularly sized view, only larger. Needless to say, this only works for new WPF applications. Boring old Win32 just gets blocky, as it always has done. "
********************************************************************That's true, but I think every little bit helps. If you really lock down your browser, you won't be able to DL's *any* files by right clicking. Giving a browser permission to DL means a hijack exploit will likely find it easier to DL all sorts of nonsense. Prohibiting that is a nuisance, but keeping the browser from doing anything but browsing is something I feel to be necessary when plain ol' surfing. Especially when I am running Microsoft products. (-: The big problem for IE is that is ships wide open. How many users even know what the questions in the Options/Security dialog mean?
What I find really interesting is that sites like E-bay still work without DL'ing rights, javascript, Active-X and the like enabled. Money talks and they're not willing to lose customers dazzling them with useless Flash ads or pop-up windows if they detect the browser's locked down. Still, with all that locking down, clicking a maliciously crafted URL/website is dangerous because of the potential for unpatched exploits. Using an old, ratty browser that no one cares about hacking anymore may or may not help in that regard. We'll see!
This information at least tends to support that belief:
Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows ME - Not Critical All later Windows version: Critical
Ironically, visiting that site triggered a "your browser has crashed" message!
Ebay has been making lots of noises about my security settings lately - they can obviously tell that they are set to maximum - so it may be that they're finally going to force their users with high-security settings in their browser to lower them, but I suspect they're reluctant to do anything that will disenfranchise a lot of their customers. Or result in an endless barrage of complaints.
I know some companies that lock down their browsers completely, insisting that users deal with that policy on a case-by-case basis. I suspect more and more businesses are doing that because of scripting exploits. Interestingly enough, it drops the personal use of the 'net at work to just about zero. No video clips, no YouTube, no game sites, no Flash ads. Far fewer cases of virus infections, too, since those rely heavily on attachments that can be downloaded and executed. Sounds draconian, but it hardly seems to impact their business use much at all. (-:
Oh, I forgot to mention the horrific performance of PDF's viewed from the browser as another thing I dislike about PDFs. Thanks!!! (-: If I really want a PDF, I DL it from a different machine that does nothing but DL files from the net. If anything goes wrong, the damage is contained to that isolated machine and I never have to actively remember to "raise shields" again as I might on my normal surfing PC.
The problem with a lot of browser exploits is that firewalls have already given the browser program access to net. Those types of exploits are only going to get more popular as the other security components are hardened and the browser is the only "door" left open. What's happening on the web is very similar to what happened with cars. Lock them down tight enough, and thieves switch from unattended thefts to car-jacking because they know YOU, the driver, can defeat the security systems. The increasing use of firewalls and scanning SW has caused the crims to switch to phishing because like the new car driver, the PC owner unlocks the door for them.
I suppose. But there's a big difference in what I read for fun and downloading an instruction manual for electronic equipment. I mentioned this so you wouldn't think I was dissing you by not following the links you post. I don't expect you to join my grass-roots campaign to get webmasters to convert PDFs to HTML when there's really no overwhelming technical reason to use them. It's clear from the discussion here that the problems of PDFs and the sight-impaired are not "general knowledge" so it's largely a question of education. Tax forms, RFPs, large documents and format-dependent documents really demand them. But most other uses I've come across, don't. They were print documents to begin with and the easiest thing for a webmaster to do is post it just that way.
Now I've got to go zero out my firewall log so I can watch the number of pings go through the roof. Writing any kind of post about security seems to attract an inordinate number of "We'll just see how secure you REALLY are types." I'd call it the "Gibson Effect" after the founder of Spinrite and his DOS attack woes but that name is already spoken for in perceptual psychology to describe how after viewing a line curved in one direction, a subsequently viewed straight line appears oppositely curved.
-- Bobby G.
On a hunch I substituted a Technical Consumer Products (TCP) SpringLamp 2700K _dimmable_ 75watt equivalent for the incandescent.
Bingo!
No buzz, no hum, no flicker, just all 4 CFLs working perfectly.
I was told by the vendor that TCP holds one or more patents on the dimmable technology and that this is the logjam. (I have know idea whether this is true. Just repeating what I was told.)
...Marc Marc_F_Hult
Hmmm ...
Isn't "as low as" (i.e., the worst) is the very *least* useful number to cite when objectively assessing the future of _improving_ technology ?
Aren't we more interested in where the technology might go, than where it has been?
The 20-watt (75-watt equivalent) Technical Consumer Products (TCP) SpringLamp I introduced earlier this evening in a different thread in the N:Vision CFL's discussion has a _rated_ (shown on the box) power factor of " >.90 ".
The power factor that I actually measured on two different CFLs (using a Kill O Watt meter) ranged from 0.94-0.97 (!)
Bout the worst I can think up to say bout them specs is thet there ain't much room left for improvement ...
Yet another Emily Litella "Never-Mind" CFL moment in the making ...
... Marc Marc_F_Hult
Ditto using a different dimmable CFL -- a 23 watt (~75-watt equivalent) Greenlite 2700K model 25W/ELS
So tried and tested tricks to using the ever-problematic X-10 WS467 2-wire dimmer with CFLs include:
1) one or two n:vision 60watt lamps, or 2) several n:visions of even higher wattage with an incandescent or dimmable (or at least these two particular models) 3) or just a dimmable (at least these particular models).... Marc Marc_F_Hult
One would then be laboring under a misconception. When I view PDFs I immediately scale them to full screen. That makes the letters big and the images clearer. If the type is still too small I click the "+" until I can read it.
I'm probably going to ditch it in favor of a wider screen soon. That or I might tote it down to Brazil to use it when we're there.
I have trouble *finding* a 17" monitor. [only kidding].
Once again, PDFs solve the problem because they are so easily scalable. HTML does not do so nearly as well.
That's why I bought it.
When I use other people's PC's I have to pan and scan. It's not a problem. It's still much easier than HTML.
What you've done here is to turn a discussion
-- a meta thread, actually -- about the relative merits of PDF and HTML into a discussion of what might be better suited to a tiny subset of the population.
This is comparable to saying that because blind people cannot drive cars, everyone should walk.
No slight against vision impaired folks is intended here. The point is that what may be useful to a blind person may be far less useful to the sighted majority.
Are you complaining about a thread excursion you readily joined of your own free will? Really? That's odd.
Let's recap on Planet Earth on how this discussion, no, this apparently horrific new menace to Usenet Law&Ordert, the "meta thread" appeared. I simply mentioned, in passing, why *I* was likely not to download his PDF's. Was that wrong? Is that not allowed? (-:
This "what I've done here" phrasing sounds as if you're about to initiate prosecution against me "doing something" to Usenet when all that happened was the normal thread drift that often occurs. What's up with that? I did at least have the decency to rename the thread to protect those who are looking for CFL data from having to wade through this miasma. You're picking up bad habits from somewhere, Bob. (-:
Tiny subset???? Thunk! The trap door opens on the gallows of Usenet truth. Call the Accuracy in Phrasing Police! Read his Miranda rights!
Please take this *very* easy two question multiple choice test:
The percent of Americans ages 65 and older are visually impaired or blind is:
A) .021 percent
B) .21 percent
C) 2.1 percent
D) 21 percent
The number of US veterans that have what are considered serious vision impairments is:
A) 50,000
B) 100,000
C) 500,000
D) 1 million
Answers here:
and
Say what?!!! I'm saying that if people are going to adapt an information transfer technology like PDF's, perhaps they could adapt one that's both non-proprietary and equally useful to the blind and sighted alike. Maybe all it takes is an add-on program for Adobe that converts PDF's into
*readable* HTML for webmasters short on time for that task. That's about three thousand light years from your stunningly simplistic assessment that I'm somehow saying "don't drive because blind people can't."Maybe not intended but labeling the sight impaired a "tiny subset" betrays a basic lack of understanding of dimensions of the problem. If you were aware of the numbers and how they are growing because of the epidemic of diabetes in the US, my feeling is that you'd hardly say "tiny subset" when describing the visually impaired. You'd also realize that many people reading this will be facing serious vision problems in the next 30 years or less, so they might want to start thinking about what they might do before it happens.
Go kiss your ($2500?) 24" Sony monitor and thank God he happened to make you able to afford it and not even far-sighted or astigmatic or acuity-challenged so that not even the biggest monitor in the world would help you.
What am I saying and you are clearly not getting is why *not* adopt a technology that serves both communities and is NON-proprietary? Vista is actually laying much of the groundwork for such a technology, but it will doubtless be proprietary as well. It doesn't need to be, however.
The number of US veterans diagnosed with low vision (an uncorrectable visual impairment from 20/70 to 20/190) is currently estimated at one million plus. The current estimated number of legally blind veterans in the United States is more than 160,000 (De l?Aune, 2002) and the Iraq war has blinded many more since then.
I would argue that while the net is a luxury to the sighted in many ways, it has become a necessity and a lifeline to the sight impaired. That should give at least equal weight, and perhaps more, about their concerns with PDFs. Especially if an open standards alternative to PDF that accounts for sight impairment can be found. Adobe is diligently adding hooks for screen readers and other assistive devices. I suspect part of that is they were at risk for being ineligible for Federal use if they didn't Only time will tell if their modifications will suffice.
-- Bobby G.
*Answers are D) 21% and D) 1 Million
I just don't know of very many sight-impaired people who can navigate at that resolution because the default dialogs, controls and other visual elements become too small to be readable or workable. Visit the Lighthouse site I cited to get a clearer perspective on this. Veterans whose eyes have been sandblasted by IED explosions would not be able to use 1600 by 1200. I am not able to see much beyond 600 by 800 and even a 21" monitor isn't all that helpful. Let's agree that your particular subset(!) of visual impairment (nearsightedness) appears to be more amenable to solution with a huge monitor than many other visually impaired people would find.
I'm happy for you. If I thought 24" screens were within the financial reach of most blind users I know personally I perhaps wouldn't rail on PDF. But large screens don't solve the screen reader issues like "reading order" that HTML documents have built-into them. Have you ever watched a PDF draw out on a slow screen? Well, screen readers for the blind have to follow the page construction flow optimized for printing and that's usually not the same as the flow for humans.
I don't understand why this point is so hard to make. If a user has to run at 600 by 800 because the screen controls are too small to see otherwise, they are going to end up in pan and scan pandemonium when they encounter one of the millions of web PDFs that began life as an 8.5 by 11" printed page. (Google came up with 1 BILLION hits on .PDF and the first ten I looked at, just at random, were all 8.5 by 11" page sizes. Try it yourself.)
What? Are you really saying that blind people (or even me) hitting right arrow, left arrow, over and over again, line by line is easier than pressing one page down key and watching text reflow automatically? I'll believe that when Denise Brown's real killer confesses to the crime - and it's not OJ. That's what this thread was all about. On a 17" monitor at 600 by 800, PDF's often make the reader scroll left and right on EVERY line, especially if a sight-impaired person has to magnify the type large enough to where they can actually read it.
HTML instead reflows into the space allotted to it. PDF's are just dumb in comparison. They can't even dynamically adjust the column width, something Word's been doing for over a decade. Forgive me, but an electronic document display technology having no "word wrap" in the 21st century is, well, primitive.
Ooh, more legalese and pseudo-editorial proclamations! You're a hoot. Obviously a simple won't quite do. Too neutral to capture your mood or what? Are you planning to start your own Internet reality called show "Judge Bob Bass" or are you just trying out as second chair for our resident Perry Mason? (-: "Snip non-probative stuff!" You're going to have me laughing all day - Thanks!
Since somehow you seem to think you're in a courtroom following the rules of evidence and criminal procedure and not Usenet:
"Your honor, I move we adjourn this thread as we're clearly talking past each other now."
-- Bobby G.
No. You broke my statement to hide what I was saying. I'll restore it here: "What you've done here is to turn a discussion
-- a meta thread, actually -- about the relative merits of PDF and HTML into a discussion of what might be better suited to a tiny subset of the population."
No Bobby, I was showing the failed logic of using an extreme case (blind readers) which affects a small minority to try to prove something is bad for the general population. I think you knew that before you snipped the rest of my statement to launch into an argument about what was not said.
Good, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. Let's get back on subject.
Yes. The vast majority of people online can see.
That's not sufficient data. First you have to know what percentage of said population (blind, elderly) is actually online. Also, for many visually impaired folks PDF works fine.
The VA estimates there are 160,000 legally blind vets. That represents a tiny fraction of the US population.
Apparently you are unaware (as I was until today) that Adobe makes a plug-in to view PDFs on a Braille display. Here's a URL.
It seems they're way ahead of us on that. According to Adobe, "The Adobe® Acrobat® family ? Acrobat 8 Professional, Acrobat 8 Standard, and Acrobat Elements software ? includes powerful publishing tools that enable authors to create and optimize accessible Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files from almost any source document."
Ignoring the tone of that comment, my assessment holds. It is not logical to deem a technology useless or unacceptible for the masses because a small subset cannot use it. However, Adobe 8 Pro seems to make that whole issue moot.
No, it does not. The blind are indeed a tiny subset compared to the universe of people online.
I'm aware of the numbers and the extent of the problem. However, you're still dwelling on this as though it supports your disdain for PDF. It doesn't.
I work hard to earn enough to buy what I need so that I can do my job more effectively. If that bothers you it's your problem.
I'm also astigmatic. Life has its challenges. Unfortunately, vision problems are small compared to other things I'm dealing with. The large monitor doesn't help with that.
You're asking two questions at once. I'll answer them separately. First, PDF is entirely capable of serving the vision impaired community if authors choose to implement the current standard. Software for the purpose is readily available. I used to create lots of PDF docs for my site. Of late I haven't needed to but I can assure you that when I do I'll first buy the current software so that my pages are accessible. I also try to keep my web content accessible (it's not only good citizenship; it's good business practice).
As to the format being proprietary, I see no problem there. Acrobat readers have been free from the word go and should continue as such. It isn't in Adobe's interest to change that and if they do a dozen other developers will write software to compete. PDF authoring tools are reasonable in cost and well integrated into content development suites. PDF has become the defacto standard for online technical docs, ensuring continued product development with accessibility included (ADA has a significant say in that).
That's outside my field of interest at present.
That figures. It was started by a blind US president leading an impaired Congress. We're going to spend the next 30-50 years undoing the damage those idiots have wraught.
You say "their" concerns as though all vision impaired persons shared your opinion. That has not been demonstrated.
Nothing of the kind is to be "found" until someone developes it. If you know how, go forth and do so. If not, it seems unfair for you to rail at folks who are doing something to help.
Looks like they have them already.
"Acrobat 8 products integrate with a broad range of assistive technologies, including: # Windows based MSAA-compliant screen readers # Screen magnification software # OCR/scanning software # Voice recognition software"
More likely they're simply trying to comly with the law. That, too, is good business sense.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.