…It’s a known truth that right knowledge can be very important when having no experience with some kind of work and even more it if is important to us……

For language identification to work properly, the user must be able to “see” that this word/phrase is different from the surrounding text. Whilst this may be the case with those screen reader users who have access to alternative synthesisers, what about those who don’t? And what about sighted users? Where is the visual cue that they need?

Language and comprehension are often two quite distinct issues. Try looking up “pump” (2 meanings in English) or “punch” (3 meanings). Etymological dictionaries are full of these examples. Perhaps Mike should have pumped Google for a little more info first to give his article a bit more punch.

Bottom line – until graphical browsers provide a method of visually highlighting these words by default, it’s highly arguable that language identification is not an accessibility issue.

Example: Jack Pickard wrote a very interesting article. But he does make some points I don’t necessarily agree with all of it though. Here’s what I don’t agree with followed by my opinion.

No need for labels like universalist or anything else for that matter. That sort of thing immediately puts up a bit of a barrier to acceptance of the opposing concept or opinion. If the facts are focused on it makes it so much friendlier. We’ll all striving for a more accessible, higher-quality web so we should be complementing each other instead of creating divisions.

Missing points or taking things out of context, which seem to be the case this time, just makes it that much worse

When people refuse to even try to see the other person’s point of view then they will get the wrong end of the stick as they arrive with preconceptions.

I read your post to mean exactly what you’ve explained above, but then I would I suppose given that I’m also a [spit]Universalist[/spit].