3 ms·
Wanna bet? I do that regularly. Sometimes just use my phone too. "Accessible" to me means I get to use the media how I want to use it. And when that is actu
by ddingus 2y ago
Wanna bet? I do that regularly. Sometimes just use my phone too.
"Accessible" to me means I get to use the media how I want to use it.
And when that is actually the deal I am happy to pay.
When it isn't? Let's just say I am not happy to pay.
A frame capture to see a detail, or discuss it with a friend is a perfectly ordinary thing to do. Same goes for audio.
People like to use media in many ways.
And these people have general purpose computing devices that do all sorts of things as they were designed to do.
What if people want to talk production? WHY does it look or sound like it does?
I believe what you meant to say was YOU think it is silly because YOU would NEVER stop your movie.
And that is OK! My wife would strongly agree with you.
- what 2y agoYou don’t get to redefine accessibility.
- dghlsakjg 2y agoWhy do we have to go by your chosen definition?
- ddingus 2y agoYou don't. My point simply is far more people than you may currently expect consider actually using something as a meaningful part of access. It is kind of silly to separate the two in this context. However ill advised I may consider it to be, you get to do that. Access to media without use does not make much sense. "Here, hold this DVD for me." Thanks?
- dghlsakjg 2y agoI’m in agreement with you. I was asking the other commenter (what) why he felt free to dismiss your definition on accessibility as a revision, while at the same time asking us to abide by his arbitrarily decided definition as the one true definition. I fully think that accessibility is impossible without freedom to use all possible functionality.
- ddingus 2y agoAhh. Indeed, thank you. I noted that, but did not ask as you did.
- ddingus 2y agoI didn't. Cheers.