Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 06:23:39 -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: <15335.54859.676721.164993@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <002901c166b8$51faefa0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> References: <15334.59771.604079.307131@guru.mired.org> <002901c166b8$51faefa0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> types: > >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.] > Yes, I agree that this is the correct way, but I have little hope that > web designers that are dead-set to code to specific browsers are going > to give a damn about doing it the right way. These are designers that > don't give a rip about the users accessing the site, they are doing what > they are doing purely for the site owner's benefit. I think most of them are doing what they are doing solely for the *designers* benefit. If the site owner realized what was being done, they'd probably want it changed. > For example, how would ADA requirements for blind-accessiblity be useful > for a on-line certification test for, say, a hunter? (gun safety) Are > you going to argue that states that require hunters to pass online > gun safety tests before getting Elk tags are going to have to make sure > that those tests are blind-accessible? Is this so that the blind people > can pass the gun safety test so they can get an Elk tag and go out in > the woods with their gun and hunt it? Actually, such as site is already required to be ADA compliant, as it's run with public funds. On the other hand, the DoJ seldom acts unless there is a complaint from a citizen. So if you get a nimrod designer for such a site, chances are that nothing will happen. > >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. > Ah. So, because something's hard to do we are going to take the cop-out > excuse and end up with stupid things like online gun-safety tests that > blind people can take so that people that monitor ADA compliance don't have to > think. That's funny, considering that you're arguing for a position that requires a lot of "not thinking". You're using not thinking of any cases where such a site might be useful to argue that you should be able to not think about making the sight accessible. No, the real argument is that it's harder to decide that a making a site ADA-compliant is useless than it is to make it ADA-compliant, so why not do the lesser amount of work, and just do it right in the first place? > >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. > Quite true. I'm sure that wheelchair accessible people are going to > be lining up to get Elk tags too, right after the blind hunters. Sigh. Sure, grab another idiotic example. Why not consider some *real* examples that you can run into of people that the ADA guidelines help: people who are colorblind, people who are deaf, people who are nearsighted, etc. Or consider some of the people that being ADA-compliant help that *aren't* disabled, but are on the cutting edge - why shouldn't I be able to take the test from my cell phone just because the designer was an idiot and decided that all the real content could be put in a graphic with no alternative text? > This is my point again - you say it needs to be considered, yet you > aren't advocating consideration, you seem to be just advocating a blanket > "lets slap on ADA to everything regardless and be done with it" No, I'm not arguing for ADA compliance on everything. I'm pointing out where it does - and possibly does not - apply. The thing is, if you design a web site for the WORLD wide web, and not for the web balkanized by browser type, your site will be ADA compliant. In other words, if the web site is properly designed to interoperate with the hundreds - if not thousands - of different agents that read web pages, ignoring the ADA completely, then the web site will be ADA compliant. No special effort is needed. I will argue that all sites should be so designed, because the web site designer doesn't control the browser or it's settings. > >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. > Sigh. You know the saddest thing that I find in this whole thread is > that at one time web designing used to be a respectible profession. When was that? Before the introduction of Mosaic? > But look at how all the idiots and their crap websites have wrecked it. Yup. > Today, you cannot trust an arbitrary web designer to be intelligent > enough to use their brains and think for a change. So, the only answer > seems to be to ram ADA compliance down all of their throats. It might > keep the idiots inline but it's going to be a pain for the rest of them > because sure as shooting there's going to be a blind person bitching > about not being able to take the gun safety test and get his Elk tag. It won't be a pain for the ones who aren't idiots, because their web sites have been and always will be compliant, because they'll be doing their jobs right. And if an idiot designs the online gun safety test and someone complains to the DoJ, they may just have to go back and do the job right. <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-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15335.54859.676721.164993>