Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:20:36 -0500
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Browsers
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:14:10 -0500, Nettamer List wrote:
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 07:37:59 -0700
> From: "Ronald C. Dailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Browsers
> On 2001-06-18 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
<snip>
> I doubt that the law would require that the web sites have _only_ "high
> contrast" format. Rather, I suspect the law would require that website
> pages be offered in both standard and an _alternate_ "high contrast"
> format, similar to the way that some sites offer both graphic and text
> formats even now. It's not a bad idea and wouldn't affect freedom of
> expression, though it would increase the work for web designers since
> they'd have to provide _both_ formats.
> Ronald Dailey
Hello Ronald:
That would seem not to be an unreasonable requirement at all. I would
support it. It is already illegal for any government agency or any
business licensed to serve the public to discriminate against the
disabled. If the disabled can be accomodated without the businesses
having to incur highly unreasonable extra overhead expenses, then by all
means it should be mandated that businesses go out of their way to
provide for access by the disabled.
BTW, what would you think of a law that would require web-site designers
to offer a special page for "Non-Java Capable" browsers and also a special
page for those who do not have other web-gizmos such as "flash" and
"shockwave" plugins? In these cases the computer operator is not disabled,
but his computer system is incapable.
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list,
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word
Unsubscribe
as the subject.
You MUST use the same address with which you subscribed!
********************************************************
