Jump to content
chuck123wapati

Edit button gone?

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Frodo said:

Ada compliant lol.   Touché 

here is a screen shot after I hit submit reply

I don't see your screen shots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Northmount said:

I don't see your screen shots.

 

latest.  Test.  L

 

 

test.  2

IMG_0102.png

IMG_0103.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frodo said:

test.  2

IMG_0102.png

You have not hit the "Submit Reply" button in this screen capture, therefore there is no edit button.  Notice the prompt "Click to choose files".  It's only there during the time you are formulating your post.  Once posted by hitting the "Submit Reply" button, that prompt goes away and the "Edit Button" should be visible and appear like this:  image.png

Another indication that it hasn't been posted yet is that your keyboard is still visible.  The keyboard goes away after the post has been submitted.

So far to me, it appears to be a case of user error.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, mostly useless factoid: It’s arguable at best that the site needs to be made ADA-accessible, because the language of the ADA has not been extended to websites by Congress, nor has the Supreme Court interpreted it to apply to websites, either. There is a split among the US Circuit Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue regarding whether the phrase “place of public accommodation” applies to websites, rather than solely physical places. The Circuits that have held the word “place” covers websites rely on a purposivist approach to construing the text to analogize websites to the kinds of (physical) places inarguably covered, websites’ importance to most Americans’ lives now, just like physical places they need to access, and the apparent purpose of Congress to require those that accommodate the public to make their places accessible to those with disabilities. The Circuits that have reached the opposite conclusion reason that the text as enacted in 1990 and later amended in (I think) 2007 refers to physical places and physical places only, as evident from the plain, ordinary meaning of the word “place,” as understood at the time of enactment, and the examples within the statute of “places” covered are all physical places and thus do not include non-physical so-called “places”.

With that bit of legal trivia, I recede again into the background…

 

*None of this legal advice, so don’t view it as such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry northmount. That was indeed myberror

 

 

Screen shot

 

IMG_0105.png

IMG_0098.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It merged with the other.  When posted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Mablung said:

Interesting, mostly useless factoid: It’s arguable at best that the site needs to be made ADA-accessible, because the language of the ADA has not been extended to websites by Congress, nor has the Supreme Court interpreted it to apply to websites, either. There is a split among the US Circuit Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue regarding whether the phrase “place of public accommodation” applies to websites, rather than solely physical places. The Circuits that have held the word “place” covers websites rely on a purposivist approach to construing the text to analogize websites to the kinds of (physical) places inarguably covered, websites’ importance to most Americans’ lives now, just like physical places they need to access, and the apparent purpose of Congress to require those that accommodate the public to make their places accessible to those with disabilities. The Circuits that have reached the opposite conclusion reason that the text as enacted in 1990 and later amended in (I think) 2007 refers to physical places and physical places only, as evident from the plain, ordinary meaning of the word “place,” as understood at the time of enactment, and the examples within the statute of “places” covered are all physical places and thus do not include non-physical so-called “places”.

With that bit of legal trivia, I recede again into the background…

 

*None of this legal advice, so don’t view it as such. 

I was joking.   Which understandably is mistaken due to 2 things,  poor wit, typing in Lou of speaking.   And spelling yikes !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Screenshot of my screen,   Again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my edit button was lost also, about the time you folks gave me and Frodo the CFM thing under our names that no one else seems to have. Hope that helps to solve this riddle it was long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Frodo said:

 

I was joking.   Which understandably is mistaken due to 2 things,  poor wit, typing in Lou of speaking.   And spelling yikes !!!

Oh, I know. It just made me think of the scenario and associated legal questions presented I dealt with in my mock Supreme Court argument competition my last year of law school; my partner and I each argued an issue, and mine was whether the statutory text covers websites. So, in the interest of greatly advancing the discussion here, I shared. :blahblahblah:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mablung said:

Oh, I know. It just made me think of the scenario and associated legal questions presented I dealt with in my mock Supreme Court argument competition my last year of law school; my partner and I each argued an issue, and mine was whether the statutory text covers websites. So, in the interest of greatly advancing the discussion here, I shared. :blahblahblah:

It will be law when someone has the money to take it to court and then up to a higher court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frodo said:

It will be law when someone has the money to take it to court and then up to a higher court

Possibly. I tend to think the Supreme Court as currently composed would be closely divided on the subject. It’s really a question for Congress to address anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chuck123wapati said:

my edit button was lost also, about the time you folks gave me and Frodo the CFM thing under our names that no one else seems to have. Hope that helps to solve this riddle it was long time ago.

I've made a request for some support to try to get this fixed.

CFM - cubic feet per minute - maybe windy guys?  LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Northmount said:

I've made a request for some support to try to get this fixed.

CFM - cubic feet per minute - maybe windy guys?  LOL

:rofl: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


well I guess it is official 

we are full of hot air 

Checking. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2024 at 7:55 AM, chuck123wapati said:

about the time you folks gave me and Frodo the CFM thing under our names that no one else seems to have

I have the same CFM under my name and no edit button. Can you tell me what the CFM stands for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...