Re: HTML Editors

Subject: Re: HTML Editors
From: Jesse Kaysen <jesse -at- MAILBAG -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 18:48:20 -0600

In article <9603071752 -dot- AA16250 -at- adphdw20>, Susan Kloster
<srk -at- plaza -dot- ds -dot- adp -dot- com> defended the use of HTML for ISO docs vigorously,
and in neat numerical order:

> 1) Relatively inexpensive
> 2) Negates the cross platform problems (software and hardware)
> 3) Eliminates the need for a database to track documents
> 4) Allows us to eliminate controlled distribution
> 5) Allows us to virtually dispense with controlled hardcopies all together
> 6) Through read/write file attributes, we control who can muck with the
> procedures
> 7) Convenient
> 8) Attractive
> 9) Techies like it
> 10) Remote facilities can access shared procedures produced by a central
> facility and vice versa

Let me add one more thing: *accessible* to people who can't read regular
print. People with low vision can crank up the font in Netscape, or use a
larger monitor (or both) or use a special-purpose screen magnification
program. People with lower or no vision can use a screen reader (software
that talks the computer screen) with Netscape (challenging, but possible)
or a character-browser like Lynx. Or they can pour the HTML into an
HTML-aware braille translator and spit out portable hardcopy.

Thank you for reading!

--
Jesse the K -- Madison Wisconsin USA -- <jesse -at- mailbag -dot- com>
Brain damage? No thanks, I already have some.


Previous by Author: New Name for Department
Next by Author: Summary: Evaluating Online Help
Previous by Thread: Re: HTML Editors
Next by Thread: Re: HTML Editors


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads