I agree whole heartily with your suggestion. I am out of this thread.


- Maurice

-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Allen, Todd
Sent: 30 January 2013 19:58
To: Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)
Subject: Re: [WEB400] DB Maintenance Design Patterns

Can we change the message subject on these messages to better reflect the (many) topics being discussed?

There is JavaScript usage and how web sites degrade (un)gracefully when it is turned off. There is also accessibility for the visually impaired. Somewhere it seems those 2 topics intersected and then diverged again.


-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Maurice O'Prey
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:52 PM
To: 'Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)'
Subject: Re: [WEB400] DB Maintenance Design Patterns


As I have stated in other posts I have no crusade against JavaScript (I use it myself and won't be without it)

If I misunderstood your comments (as clearly I did) then I apologise to you. Thank you for your extended explanation.

Kind Regards


-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Henrik Rützou
Sent: 30 January 2013 19:37
To: Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)
Subject: Re: [WEB400] DB Maintenance Design Patterns

This is a strange discussion, we discuss accessibility, javascript and suddenly HTML5 and CCS3, that isn’t supported by all browsers and certainly isn’t supported by older browsers, is fine to use?

Another thing that Maurice assumes in his calculation of lost blind souls is that all 7 billion people on this earth speaks English, he may have to adjust this figure to a less than a single billion and what about accessibility for the remaining 6 billion? I don’t see accessibility for minorities that may only speak Spanish, Arabic or other languages on the RNIB page.

About the blind and severely visual impaired the fact is that special tools/software are a much better solution that trying to make a webpage readable for all simply because whatever font we use it will never enable a blind to read it.

In practice this group of people operates the internet with products like JAWS, zoomtext. VoiceOver, Blindtype and Fleksy (an iOS keyboard app) or make use of that supports conversion of text to sound/Braille and thereby supports Braille displays and embossers.
Robobraille happens to be developed by the National Center for Blind and Partially Sighted Children in Denmark, an institution which one of my ancestors Lars Rützou headed in 1909-1935. But also the build in zooming in iPhone and iPad has been a huge improvement for visually impaired.

I have myself worked with blind people in 10 years because I previous had the Danish Association of the Blind as a customer (an independent private association, organized and led by people who are blind or severely visually impaired).

Please use 4 minutes of your time to see this little film about how blind and visually impaired works with computers and make notice of the font size required if you are visually impaired.

IMO we do not help people by dragging others down or telling them to disable a common used browser feature based on fear, we help them by providing them with innovative technologies that solves their problems – if that is lack of compassion – let it so be.

Apparently the long lived fear of javascript has survived and that has nothing to do with helping people with disabilities, it is simply a pure technical discussion and I don’t have to put anything on my homepage because people will notice that nothing will work (in my demo) if they (seeing or blind) has disabled javascript since I use EXT JS that is a pure OO javascript client framework and has basically no HTML since that is generated by the OO javascript. So even if I wanted to do so I couldn’t possible do “progressive enhancement” development.

So if I lose some souls, I lose them because THEY have chosen to deactivate javascript or maybe have an old browser version than I don’t support, not because they have a personal disability.

The bottom line is that accessibility can be defined in many ways and there is no possible way to make worldwide accessibility covering all browsers in all versions with all possible browser settings and at the same time provide any languages without extreme cost and feature loss.

We live with a daily choice of what version we support and what features that has to be installed on both server and client side and that goes for all persons with or without a personal disability or should we still support DOS and Win 3.0 based on personal disability rights? Or where do we draw the line?

I apologize to Maurice if I have offended him, but what I saw was, what I believed was, a pure technical crusade against javascript advocated with the offset in a group of people’s disabilities and that is in my book not okay, especially when I had known and worked with some of these people and know the pride most feel in being self-helped and able to function in our seeing world. They don’t want us to change our world; they don’t want us seeing to come every day to feed them, to bath them or to following them to the toilet; they just want the tools to be able to navigate in our world and most will not turn javascript processing off, if that was a barrier to archive their goal. Never underestimate or diminish a person with a physical disability because you find yourself better, most seems to have the never ending melody of Billy Ocean running in their heads … “When the going gets tough, the tough gets going” – a melody most “normal” find hard to reach when – the going gets tough!

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Peter Dow <petercdow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Maurice,

You seem awfully angry about something. How would blind people be able
to read "Blind people please go away"? Better would be to play an mp3
or wav file, but then you'd have to be sure they were using HTML5 or
some plugin or another.

*Peter Dow* /
Dow Software Services, Inc.
909 793-9050
petercdow@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:petercdow@xxxxxxxxx> pdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 1/29/2013 1:18 PM, Maurice O'Prey wrote:

Stick that on the front of your web site then, "Blind people please

I called you an idiot before (sorry I was right!)

-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Behalf Of Henrik Rützou
Sent: 29 January 2013 21:00
To: Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)
Subject: Re: [WEB400] DB Maintenance Design Patterns


with all due respect, we cannot operate a society based on 1 % are

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Dean, Robert <rdean@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

I think you're missing the point. The main accessibility concern
sightedness: how does your site perform for a non-visual user agent?

-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Behalf Of Nathan Andelin
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:51 PM
To: Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)
Subject: Re: [WEB400] DB Maintenance Design Patterns


I'm suffering from the same disconnect. How would disabling
JavaScript help users with disabilities? How would impairing the
browser improve accessibility? It doesn't make sense. If you want
to help people with disabilities then provide keyboard short-cuts
as alternatives to mouse events, at least when it concerns to database maintenance.

How would reloading an entire page (brochure-ware) be more
accessible than using AJAX to update field values. Under the former
you wait longer and consume more bandwidth. The latter is n-times more efficient.

I think that arguments can be made for using moderate amounts of
JavaScript. Excessive JavaScript can impair the performance of user
interfaces; make the UI appear sluggish and heavy-weight. But it
doesn't make sense to eschew JavaScript altogether.

Some developers may not want to take the time and initiative to
learn JavaScript. In that case, they may license a wizard to
generate it; consign themselves to the constraints of the wizard.


----- Original Message -----
From: Henrik Rützou <hr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [WEB400] DB Maintenance Design Patterns


What is it that gives an employee with a disability, or any
employee for that matter, the right to disable javascript on his work computer?
And why should they? What is the argument?

And what about HTML5 and CSS3 should there also be EU rules
forbidding using these?

I think I can speak for many that the society has to provide
accessibility for most possible people and persons with a
disability has the right to be helped in the best possible way, but
that right doesn’t include the right to refuse to use a common
worldwide used and available technology - that is a complete misunderstanding.

Javascript is an older technology than CSS and javascript is a
natural component of coding webpages as HTML rendering is and it
has been it by decades. Besides that javascript comes with all
available browsers and is an important component if you want to
provide cross browser/device support and thereby common accessibility.

Besides that javascript is activated as standard in all browsers
and IMO, anyone that deliberately adds disability to his/hers
browser has only them self to blame.

To demand EU legislation that any webpage should be able to run in
any persons f***** up browser setting (hereby disabling processing
of program code that is an international ISO/IEC industry standard)
as the lowest common denominator and then use people with a
disability as the platform for the argumentation is to me
farfetched and completely taking out of context.

The world is changing with the speed of light, yesterday we had
analog telephones, max 8bytes pr. second telegraphs from the post
office, analog data transmission and radio beacons for ship
navigation, today we have digital telephones, digital 20Mbit pr.
second e-mails from our homes, gigabyte digital data transmission
and GPS satellites for the same and no one is dreaming of producing
a training or film video on VHS or Betamax because a little
stubborn nostalgic group still prefers or only has access to that technology.

What you are arguing and suggestion is that those of us that
develops modern WEB 2.0 UI’s should start with going back several
decades and develop our base systems based on what technology was
available at that time to support users that prefers that
technology and then add features to make the system more “modern” –
and that is as technologic idiotic as to demand VW to develop a
Golf VII based on a Golf I chassis from 1974 and still get 5 stars
in the current EuroNCAP
standard security crash test.

In a broader sense the term “availability/accessibility” has in the
resent years got a new meaning, because who has to be
available/accessible to whom? “I want this and that, I want it
today, I wanted it yesterday and I want more tomorrow, because then
my demand all has changed” doesn’t seems to apply to the current world we live in.

Yesterday is in a technological sense not only bygones, yesterday
is for many people real bygones and those who will survive are
those who manage to adapt to the current technology and situation.

Nobody will survive making software to an IBM I and still
compatible with a
System/36 5363 or a first generation browser – technological
bygones has to be bygones, so has webpages without javascript and
that is where your disability argument doesn’t hold water.

And still the question is in the air, what is the argument for doing so?

For More Than 80 Years—Delivering Solutions That Exceed Expectations.

This communication and any transmitted documents are intended to be confidential. If there is a problem with this transmission, please contact the sender. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
This is the Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (WEB400) mailing list To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 by and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].