Accessibility and the law

"Its up to the web owner who they personally welcome onto their site,
just as it is if they owned a shop, at least here in the UK it is."

That's aburd. Tell you what, go run a shop and put up a sign saying "no
disabled people or black people" and see how long you stay in business.



"Osgood" <notavailable (AT) thisaddress (DOT) com> wrote

irvin wrote:
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/AppendixA.html

What a load of crap!


This accessibility issue is becoming a major joke!

Its up to the web owner who they personally welcome onto their site,
just as it is if they owned a shop, at least here in the UK it is.

If they dont like someone because they have big ears, a big nose or a
zit on their forehead they have have every right to exclude them from
the premises.

These minority sections of society seem to be carrying around a big chip
on their shoulders, I guess they have nothing more important in life to
do but whinge all the time.

The funny thing is that many of the "accessibility' proponents would be the
first ones to cry foul should anyone EVEN SUGGEST that a law should be
passed to regulate the web development process, much like practicing
medicine or law.

What if a college degree in either graphic design or computer science was
required BY LAW in order to engage in the business of web
design/development?

That's a topic none of these accessibility "experts" would adress
for...obvious reasons. But it's quite reasonable to to think that requiring
a license to practice web design/development would automatically raise the
technical/aesthetic level of all practictioners and the sites they produce.


The topic is quite complex, indeed.



--
Irvin
------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com




Al Sparber- PVII wrote:

irvin wrote:
To me, the greatest danger lies in the fact that, by raising the
technical "bar" we could be excluding the majority in favor of a few.

If only people with technical expertise were allowed to create sites,
then a great damage has been done to the overwhelming majority of
internet-based publishers: the accountant publishing his family's web
album on the space provided by AOL; the small-restaurant owner using
CoffeeCup's "web creation tools" to give his dying business one last
chance at making it; the young entrepeneur designing his own site
because cash flow won't allow for paying a pro...

The list goes on and on.


How "accessible" would the internet be, then?


Accessibility is far more complex that Joe Clark's myopic scare
tactics. Accessibility is far more complex than making your site
available to the blind.


True accessibility goes WAY beyond taking care of the "alt"
attribute.

Yes. Precisely. But there is currently legislation and there will be
more, but even that is not clearcut because there is no real
validation mechanism possible for accessibility and those who do well
with clients who must address accessibility laws are the ones who can
explain each of the warnings spewed forth from the Bobby web site
checker and sound knowledgable doing so :-)

Read Al's posts above, and my answers to him. You might learn something,
Misha...

--
Irvin
------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com




Michael Fesser wrote:

irvin wrote:

http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/AppendixA.html

What a load of crap!

Want o know if your site is really "accessible"?
Try to "access" it with a mainstream browser like Internet
Explorer!!! "Oh, but, wait, I'm using this esoteric device and I
can't read your text" Well, it might be time to return it for a
refund...

[ ] You've read and understood the text
[ ] You know the meaning of 'accessibility'
[ ] You know what the WWW really is
[x] You think MS IE = Internet

It might be interesting for your that the most disabled 'persons'
trying to access your websites are not human people, but search
engine's bots. Telling such a bot "Fuck off" is not the best thing to
do, but it's your website. If you don't wanna be found then it's your
problem, not ours.

Micha

Bruce Lawson wrote:

"Its up to the web owner who they personally welcome onto their site,
just as it is if they owned a shop, at least here in the UK it is."

That's aburd. Tell you what, go run a shop and put up a sign saying
"no disabled people or black people" and see how long you stay in
business.

In the U.S. you cannot do that. You have to have entry and restroom
access for disabled people to get an occupancy permit. Older and
landmark buildings are often "grandfathered" leaving it to the
management and the disabled to work together as they have in the past.

I think you are magnifying this out of proportion which is one reason
this subject, like CSS-P, cannot be discussed rationally on this type of
forum :-)


--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com

"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs
are scheduled for next Tuesday".

A restaurant patron
is completely at the mercy of the restaurateur to make the premises
accessible. That is not entirely true of web sites.

Well, neither is true. For example, let's consider wheel chairs. The
restaurant only needs to provide the ramp. The individual still needs the
wheel chair.

On the web, we only need (well, it's not truly a law yet) to provide
semantical markup that meets the needs of the assistive technology. The
individual still needs the assitive technology.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

One thing to add is the misconception that accessibility issues only apply
to a sub-set of the population. Accessibility issues apply to everyone. The
more accessible a site is, the better it is for all people...not just those
in wheelchairs.

-Darrel

Legislation is usually needed to force an issue. The answer to prevent
accessibility legislation pertaining to the web is for us web developer to
all start making it an issue with the sites we create. ;o)

-Darrel

Bruce Lawson wrote:

"Its up to the web owner who they personally welcome onto their site,
just as it is if they owned a shop, at least here in the UK it is."

That's aburd. Tell you what, go run a shop and put up a sign saying "no
disabled people or black people" and see how long you stay in business.

I didnt say that. What I said is anybody should have the right to choose
who they cater for.

I dont expect every man jack to cater for me, why should all these
minority groups?

Its quite ridiculous. There are methods, places, business who already
cater for them, which is great news for people with disadvantages, they
make a very good living out of it.

Some business may not choose to cater for them due to the expenses which
would be incured. Is a free world or is it hummmm

Several years ago I owned a retail business downstairs off the main
'shopping' street. The landlord reconfigured the space from a basement. We
had a fairly wide set of stairs with nice railings .... not something any
wheelchair could ever maneuver!! We also had to have a wheel chair
accessible bathroom down there. How absurd!....... and expensive!
Eleanor

Al Sparber- PVII wrote:

Bruce Lawson wrote:
"Its up to the web owner who they personally welcome onto their site,
just as it is if they owned a shop, at least here in the UK it is."

That's aburd. Tell you what, go run a shop and put up a sign saying
"no disabled people or black people" and see how long you stay in
business.

In the U.S. you cannot do that. You have to have entry and restroom
access for disabled people to get an occupancy permit. Older and
landmark buildings are often "grandfathered" leaving it to the
management and the disabled to work together as they have in the past.

I think you are magnifying this out of proportion which is one reason
this subject, like CSS-P, cannot be discussed rationally on this type
of forum :-)

I didnt say that. What I said is anybody should have the right to choose
who they cater for.

And in this US, the argument is that if you receive the benefits of being
able to run a business in our society, then, in turn, you must cater to our
society without prejudice.

I dont expect every man jack to cater for me, why should all these
minority groups?

You expect to be treated equally, no?

Its quite ridiculous. There are methods, places, business who already
cater for them, which is great news for people with disadvantages, they
make a very good living out of it.

By 'good living' do you mean 'charging more for the same services to people
with handicaps?' So, not only is a person who is handicapped banned from
using the same resources as you, but now they have to pay more as well?

Some business may not choose to cater for them due to the expenses which
would be incured. Is a free world or is it hummmm

Define free? It's a free world, but most of us live in societies. Part of
the social contract is to share the burden of society at large. If I ride my
bike to work, well, then why should I have to pay taxes to build roads? If I
don't have kids, why should my taxes go towards schools? I don't go to the
poor part of town, so why should I pay for the police to patrol it?

You are paying a lot for a lot of things you don't use. In turn, a lot of
people are paying for things that you use, but they don't. It's about
spreading the burden so all in a society can benefit. Some just call it
empathy.

;o)

-Darrel

With all due respect, when an issue like this takes on a moral or
political tone it can pretty much be said...


fill in the blank ;-)




There are some really good accessibility lists and forums where there is
a certain amount of objectivity and problem solving. IBM-HPR and
Window-Eyes are 2 groups I monitor only because they are groups used by
actual handicapped people.

--
Al