Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:24:38 -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: <15333.31190.717768.983778@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <001a01c16501$8514f380$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> References: <15332.41849.327680.753795@guru.mired.org> <001a01c16501$8514f380$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> types: > Let me throw in my $0.02 here: > > 1) Could you guys retitle this thread "ADA Website access" or something? > NatWest disappeared a long time ago. Don't get me wrong I'm interested > in how it comes out. You missed your chance... > 2) Getting back to NatWest, where is the evidence that IE is not blind > accessible? For the sake of argument assume that ADA applies to commercial > websites - well even if it did, it seems to me that there would only be > grounds to sue if IE somehow could not be make blind-accessible. After all, > consider a porno website - blind people aren't consumers of pornographic > images and thus there is no access issue here, thus to make IE > blind-accessible > it would seem that all that would be necessary is to attach a braille > terminal and get IE to work with it. Since blind people cannot by definition > consume images, all that a braille terminal need display on a website is the > textual information on the site. That was my second reason the complaint was wrong, which vanished from the thread a long time ago. If MSN requires MSIE, and MSIE's many accessibility options makes the site accessible, then the system as a whole is fine. > It may be cynical to say this but wouldn't it be cheaper if someone like > AOL was sued for access problems, for them to simply work with Microsoft and > release a blind-enabled IE than to redesign their many websites. Not only > would it be cheaper but also profitable. What really happened when AOL was sued by the National Federation for the Blind is probably safer.. They settled out of court after AOL agreed to make the next version of their software accessible. MicroSoft didn't need to get involved. > 3) Even if there was a US Supreme Court ruling that mandated ADA for > commercial > websites, how would it apply if the website content was not about something > that a blind person can use. If a blind person were acting in some capacity for a a sighted person - i.e., considering buying a gift, or researching options or some such thing. You know they really do put braille on the buttons in the drive-through ATMs. <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?15333.31190.717768.983778>