Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:33:15 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: NatWest? no thanks Message-ID: <15334.59771.604079.307131@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <004201c165e6$75c34720$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> References: <Pine.BSI.4.20.0111040959300.2371-100000@brain.mics.net> <004201c165e6$75c34720$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> types: > >It's a lot more complicated than that. First, it's not at all clear that > >were the ADA to apply to commercial web sites that it would be acceptable to > >require tha you use IE, as opposed to any generally accepted solution. > Let's be clear on this, it's impossible for the > website to require IE - all the website can do is require that > the user use a web browser that appears to be IE. Since the browser is > operated by the user, it's really in the power of the user to send back any > browser ID string they feel like, support whatever active x ie supports, etc. Note that Lynx used to warn people that changing the UA string might well be a violation of copyright. And since IE lets you disable Active X, discriminating based on the UA string will incorrectly exclude some people, and incorrectly include others. The correct solution is to detect the feature - or lack thereof - in question, and respond appropriately to that. See <URL: http://www.idiom.com/~mwm/supported-myth.html > for a longer essay on that topic. [That's a temporary location while I'm waiting on a the hardware needed to fix my server.] > > Second, reading the text on a web site is often not enough to be > >able to use it. > Exactly my point. If the knowledge gained from something made accessible is > unusable to the blind person, then what is the point to making it accessible > to start with. Actually, those are two different points. At least, I think they are. The first is a complaint that many web sites are poorly designed, and don't make use of the ability to display an alternative if the media used isn't supported by the browser. The second is trying to make the point that the information provided may not be usable by the person doing the browsing. Which ignores the many cases where the person driving the browser isn't the final consumer of the information. > So you won't get any arguements out of me if the Supreme Court tells all > commercial entities that Flash cannot be used because it doesen't meet > ADA. On the contrary I'll be jumping for joy. Actually, the DoJ already has guidelines on this case - after all, it's been established that the ADA *does apply to web sites run with public funds. The answer is that it doesn't matter what the sighted person sees, so long as the unsighted or otherwise disabled can access the same information. Meaning that you'll get to disable flash plugins in your browser, and hopefully get text instead. > What I do think, though, is that it's very easy to push this thing way too > far, much easier than something mundane like building access. It's easy > enough to argue that public buildings need ramp access - not only is it good > for the handicapped, but there's lots of normal everyday things like > deliveries on handcarts that don't go through the loading dock and why should > the minimum-wage UPS delivery kid have to throw out his back carrying loads up > steps all day long? But, while ADA access to commercial websites really needs > to be written into the law, it also needs to have a whole lot more exceptions > in it than building access. I don't think you've made your case, for three different reasons. The one that's been discussed is that it's hard to determine exactly when some page would never be used by someone who is disabled. The second is that we've been concentrating on the blind, but there are other impairments that effect the browsing experience that need to be considered. Finally, as someone who consults professionally on creating accessible web sites, it's that the cost of creating an accessible web site is *very low*. Adding ramps to a building changes the look of the building, and may be a fundamental design change. All the W3C-designed standards provide for an alternative presentation if the browser doesn't use the primary one. All it takes to build an accessible web site is *using* those things with intelligence. Unfortunately, web site designers seem to be seriously lacking in that last ingredient. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15334.59771.604079.307131>