No but you DO have an escalator at your local shopping mall because
not everyone finds the climb up the stairs easy. Or should we remove
the escalators and elevators from shopping malls too because they
CHOSE to go to that shopping mall didn't they?
Can you please use logic and sense?
On
Well that's a matter of opinion (preferably a matter of legal opinion).
The thing is, it really should be, but right now, there aren't many
laws written that protect much of what occurs online (read as: none).
Sometimes I am glad thats the case however.
I bet everyone around here has a website
Steve Green wrote:
I suspect that this lawsuit was premature
The WCAG were published 8 years ago. How long should we wait? I don't know
when Section 508 came into law but the UK's DDA was passed in 1995. Seems
like long enough to me.
508 was 1998.
WCAG was 1999
Target came online in 1997?
IE
yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites
that people actually need and use.
fair nuff. you gonna sue me?
On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote:
If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow
your own advice first. Captain table layout
Russ, time to step in the ring perhaps?
On 10/4/07, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites that
people actually need and use.
fair nuff. you gonna sue me?
On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote:
If you are going to
Careful...
You vill also go on ze list!
On Thu, October 4, 2007 7:28 am, Joe Ortenzi wrote:
yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites
that people actually need and use.
fair nuff. you gonna sue me?
On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote:
If you are going
On 4 Oct 2007, at 04:33, Jim Davies wrote:
Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government
entity should be telling a private business what it must do
WHAT?
with that one line you have just summarised all that is strange about
America. Private business is above the law?
There's one thing nobody has mentioned so far, which is Michelle Malkin
is what I personally would call an extreme right-winger. She's a regular
on Fox News, and she's been compared to Anne Coulter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin
I find the idea that we'll drop her a polite,
Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government
entity should be telling a private business what it must do
WHAT?
with that one line you have just summarised all that is strange about
America. Private business is above the law? They can do whatever
they like?
so it's
even if making their site accessible to the blind costs target 0 dollars and
0 work, even if they need to just flip a button and bang - their site is
accessible, it doesn't mean the law should force them to do it.
what i really don't understand is why did the blind people sued target..if
target
On 4 Oct 2007, at 08:33, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government
entity should be telling a private business what it must do
WHAT?
with that one line you have just summarised all that is strange about
America. Private business is above the
Quoting Or Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
First things first. I am a complete and total grammar snob; I think it
is because I see myself as a designer. Punctuation is important, as is
spacing and capitalisation. They do not hinder you, contrary, they
promote your argument, as it makes you seem
Alas, it's the American way:
Human rights and the constitution are vitally important (US only)- except
when I'm turning a quick buck.
On Thu, October 4, 2007 9:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Or Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
First things first. I am a complete and total grammar snob; I
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
Karl Lurman wrote:
P.s A braille issue of Playboy - is it perverted that I think this is
a cool idea??!
You know this exists right?
http://www.banterist.com/archivefiles/000305.html [link is safe for work]
I'm frightened you knew that, or even thought to
I thought legislature and regulation are constitutionally separate in
the US?
On Oct 04, 2007, at 06:01, Michael MD wrote:
Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government
entity should be telling a private business what it must do and
that includes telling a business
it
John Horner wrote:
There's one thing nobody has mentioned so far, which is Michelle Malkin
is what I personally would call an extreme right-winger. She's a regular
on Fox News, and she's been compared to Anne Coulter.
Yes I did, at 10:47am. Keep up ;-)
RalphNader legislatively proved that you cannot budget the risks
involved in the 70's with the famous Ford Pinto debacle.
they forgot to include the bad press or legal challenge when ignoring
the rights of the community.
On Oct 04, 2007, at 06:24, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
I really
Bless you Kat for a very intelligent and reasoned argument.
On Oct 04, 2007, at 09:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Or Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
First things first. I am a complete and total grammar snob; I think
it is because I see myself as a designer. Punctuation is important,
as
Mike Brown wrote:
[Mike - see, the problem is this guy is only a part-time web developer.
If he was full-time, he'd totally have time and be able to solve the
verbalise the text into every spoken language problem.]
The funny thing for me was his later comment - someone else mentioned
JAWS,
I agree, reading her blog she seems to be a knee-jerk reactionary
Republican who wants government support when they get shafted and
government to lay off when others accuse them of shafting.
Someone earlier said she was intelligent - I find little evidence of
this.
On Oct 04, 2007, at
Two mistakes.
As already mentioned, they do, in legislation, need to make the site
accessible or at least show the attempt to, NOT to say we don't want
to so we won't.
If they bar people who speak Spanish from the shop they are also
being discriminatory, both to the Spanish they are
*SIGH*
I know, that JAWS Activex/AD statement floored me, it really did
How did he get on this list? Might be a newb like me but I though
he'd know better than that.
This is why it is taking me ages to recruit a LAMP developer who know
who webstandards.org are and what they are for!
oops!
Target are not offering a website to help clients. You can bet your
last penny they have a website to make it easier to reach more
customers and convince them to spend their money with Traget.
Period!
There is nothing in Target's behaviour that says they want to make
life easier for
Since I started it, I'll ask that we conclude the thread. Thanks to
everyone for your input. The discussion was excellent and I now have
some good ammo to use when debating this issue with others. I also see
that the discussion has spread to other sites. Thanks again!
Anyone want to conclude the
Sorry I have to disagree some of these points.
Comments among your text
On Oct 04, 2007, at 01:56, Steve Green wrote:
can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility
costs
money comes from?
It certainly can do depending on the content of your site and the
target
Please compare like with like.
Target and your local grocery store are not a valid comparison.
target were approached, had the issue politely explained, were shown
suggestions as to how it could be fixed, were given both financial
and legislative reasons to do so and decided to say no.
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
I think these were mentioned in the part of the post you did not
include in your quote... Interesting quoting tactics.
Oh, please! Guilt by assertion?
Jim Davies made no mention of taxes in his post. What he did say was:
Of course the private businesses should do
You are right, there is no reason in the world not to make your site
accessible. It's easy and it is cheap, and it makes your site better.
The question is, why should we force anyone to do it? No one makes his site
non-accessible out of discriminating motives. They do it because they are
either
This was a warning of others on WSG - not a threat by me.
To get on the list you have to respond to a post by Chris Wilson in an
intelligent reasoned way. He will then make some bah-hoo comment about
your Website (because he can't defend himself by intelligent reasoning).
This will then be
If you're doing business in a country (as in your company has offices and/or
stores in that country), that country's legislation applies.
P
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
Wilson
Sent: 03 October 2007
Jermayn Parker
1992
that is 15 years ago :shock:
surely its time for a new updated version that includes up to date web
version of rules etc.
If you want businesses and websites to follow these standards
they need
to be update
Because, you know...they've simply been ignoring 15
Julie Romanowski
Please visit Michelle Malkin's site and post your comments -
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/03/blind-shoppers-get-green-
light-to-s
ue-target-over-website/.
It's reassuring to see the exact same idiotic views still being bandied around,
most of them along the the web is
Actually Joseph, we're in (near) total agreement. I am not arguing that
these things should not be done. I do them every day and advocate to others
that they should be done. I am merely saying that there is a cost associated
with doing them. Accessible, standards-compliant design does cost more at
Which takes us back to the beginning (you should now get plausible
costings of non-adherence):
On Wed, October 3, 2007 4:52 pm, Andrew Maben wrote:
Judge allows class action against Target Web site:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
This might advance the cause of
I've been reading the Target thread and keep wondering about the many
references to the cost of accessibility with a focus on supplying alt
attributes.
In a database supported eCommerce site, it's very, very easy to put alt
attributes on product images. You simply take the name of the product
On Oct 4, 2007, at 12:23 AM, Michael MD wrote:
Opening the door to yet more lawsuits...
In 2000, Bruce Maguire's accessibility complaint against the
Olympics.com website was upheld. Did this lead to a spate of
frivolous, discriminatory lawsuits in Australia? As none of the
advocates of
On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:01 AM, Michael MD wrote:
I think the best response to ignorance is education ... not
lawsuits...
But as Target chose to dismiss attempts at education? Obviously
education is preferable to recourse to law, but education sometimes
fails. That's how people end up in
On 10/4/07, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, reading her blog she seems to be a knee-jerk reactionary
Republican who wants government support when they get shafted and
government to lay off when others accuse them of shafting.
Someone earlier said she was intelligent - I find
In 2000, Bruce Maguire's accessibility complaint against the
Olympics.com website was upheld.
Did this lead to a spate of frivolous, discriminatory lawsuits in
Australia?
Did it lead to any improvement in accessibility of commercial,
government or hobby web sites in Australia?
Did it
On 4 Oct 2007, at 17:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to ensure my professional work is accessible, but I am far from
being persuaded that legislation of this nature can ever be effective,
without also being a burden on smaller sites, particularly those that
are no longer actively
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In 2000, Bruce Maguire's accessibility complaint against the
Olympics.com website was upheld.
Did this lead to a spate of frivolous, discriminatory lawsuits in
Australia?
Did it lead to any improvement in accessibility of commercial,
government or hobby web
I will be out of the office starting 05/10/2007 and will not return until
08/10/2007.
I will respond to your message when I return.
**
IMPORTANT: This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and may
contain
Mark Harris wrote:
I'm frightened you knew that, or even thought to google it...
I've been waiting a while to post this again, so now will do...
In a survey of attitudes and responses to audio description of TV and
video, the American Foundation for the Blind found that some
respondents
Christie Mason wrote:
If Target doesn't get how their methods are costing them sales, negatively
impacting their brand, and increasing their web support costs; then should
they be legislated into more profitable methods?
Gday Christie,
It's not about the cost nor the profitability. It's
The question is, why should we force anyone to do it?
Well the short answer is: because corporations won't do it without
being forced. So if we want a non-discriminatory society, we have to
force corporations to do good things.
No one makes his site
non-accessible out of discriminating
Christie wrote:
. . .
It's very, very difficult to defend the Target site, it's an unusable
mess
so I don't use it, but Target does have the right to have a bad site.
Not if they lose this case, they don't.
Kerry
---
-Original Message-
From: Ben Buchanan
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:35 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
I believe web accessibility is in society's best interests. Companies
should be forced to do it, just as they are forced (at least in
Christie wrote:
It's very, very difficult to defend the Target site, it's an unusable
mess
so I don't use it, but Target does have the right to have a bad site.
Kerry
Not if they lose this case, they don't.
Christie
Then they will still have to the right to have a bad, accessible site.
48 matches
Mail list logo
