On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 10:27:08AM -0500, Damien Morton wrote:
I wonder if the ADA would accept the need to obscure email addresses, and I wonder if they would accept the extra authentication step required to get at the unobscured email address? Would they understand that it protects all mailman users, including the disabled?
Stunningly unlikely...
Would Lynx users and other browser-disadvantaged users accept the extra authentication/authorisation step to get at the unobscured email addresses? Would they understand that it protects _them_ as well?
If each page had a link to the version of that same page that required authentication, so that I wouldn't have to go do a whole-nother damned search, yeah...
And insulting lynx users isn't a way to increase your expected life span. Go do something less controversial like arguing the advantages of vi in the emacs news groups.
Agreed, appologies to recidivists, luddites and lynx users :)
Nice to know that you understand now that those are three separate groups. :-)
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
"If you don't have a dream; how're you gonna have a dream come true?" -- Captain Sensible, The Damned (from South Pacific's "Happy Talk")