On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Brian Jonnes wrote:
> In <5ga84a$oda at gazette.engr.sgi.com>, patcar at symph.esd.sgi.com (Pat
> Caruthers) wrote:
>> >wow.
> >a new set of questions.
> >a whole new set of potential legal pit falls....gee, thanks.
>> AAARRGG! People should be responsible for themselves. People with
> photo-epilepsy should know that they should be careful of computers, just
> like someone with poor eyes should be careful of cars.
>> Are we, as developers, supposed to think of EVERYTHING.
[snip]
> Are WE supposed to be responsible for that? Should WE be paying them
> for their therapy? I think not.
I once gave a materials science course to dental students when of them got
an epileptic fit; I found it a rather frightening experience.
>> I'm NOT trying to put anyone down. I can't stress this enough. Its just
> that you can't make developers responsible for ALL eventualities.
>I am wondering about commercial applications of the web, and then things
like these come up. It may be irritating on the short term; in the long
term it may lead however to improvements in hardware quality.
Denial does not help.
> If I see an applet which doesn't over-ride the update() method, I want to
> throw my monitor across the room. But I don't have to.
If you make a commerical application, people may have to ...
I just hit the left
> arrow.
>> Cheers,
>> Brian
Hope I do not sound to patronizing ..
Anthonie Muller
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~awjm
