Re: [WSG] document.getElementById slow?

[Matias Lespiau]

Hi,

Also consider that accessing the element directly also leads to
less-maintainable code, as a change in the DOM (presentation) might requre
you to change the javascript code ( behaviour ). In my humble opinion, you
should use getElementById as the loss of performance is greatly compensated
by maintainable code.

PD: This is my first message to the list so please excuse any etiquette or
language mistakes i could have made.

On 10/5/07, Christian Snodgrass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As others have said before, direct access will be always be faster than
> the getElementById(), assuming that you are actually getting direct
> access (which I'm not 100% sure about). However, I would say the
> difference in the speed for most pages would be almost unnoticeable,
> probably only a couple of milliseconds difference. The difference would
> likely only become apparent if you had either 1000s (or maybe more)
> elements and/or 100s of getElementById() calls.
>
> Christian Snodgrass
> Azure Ronin Web Design
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Elizabeth Spiegel]

The argument that providing reasonable access for blind/vision-impaired
visitors/customers implies an equal need to provide translations into every
language on the planet is a straw man.  Last time I looked, the inability to
speak English was not a disability (in any legal sense) although it's
certainly a disadvantage in Australia! I don't know of anywhere that
requires businesses to provide services in anything other than the official
language/s of the country.

Target apparently provided discounts that were available only online.  They
built their site in a way which made those discounts inaccessible to blind
people and refused to change the site when the problem was politely pointed
out to them. An equivalent bricks-and-mortar equivalent would perhaps be to
offer discount vouchers that were not available to people in wheelchairs.

If you could rely on businesses to act in a non-discriminatory way because
otherwise a group of their potential customers would shop elsewhere,
anti-discrimination legislation would not be necessary.  And no-one would
ever miss out on a job for which they were the best-qualified applicant
merely because of their gender/ ethnic background/ sexuality etc etc etc.
 
Elizabeth
www.spiegelweb.com.au




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***<>

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Nancy Johnson]

Hi 

I hope this thread isn't closed.  

I have never worked on large retail sites as I tend to work on non-profit and 
government sites, but if the problem has to do with alt tags then I have very 
little sympathy for Target as this seems like a minor thing.

A person with a disability expends at least 4 times as much energy than someone 
with no disability just to get through the day.  Target could use a bit of 
kindness on that level alone, what could this company do to make the life of 
someone a bit easier and hopefully little cost. 


The argument that says that folks with visually disabilities can physically go 
to the store to shop is also not true. 

Blind folks cannot shop in a store without a sited person there to help them 
and tell them where things are and so they can't browse easily.  Websites have 
the ability to open doors, allowing the visually impaired to browse and do this 
alone and independently.

Although I am not an expert and may be incorrect, all assistive devices are 
extremely expensive, and I have a feeling at least some or not all of the 
burden falls on the person who needs the assistive device (at least in the US), 
such as a screen reader and an up-to-date computer to support it.   In 
comparison, I think making a website accessible is a minor cost. 

Nancy Johnson








   

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Cost of Accessibility and WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[McLaughlin, Gail G]

This conversation has been very interesting to follow these past few days.

There are two topics that have not surfaced in the posts I've read.

1. The commercial sector does not take accessibility (on the web) seriously.

My team works with many large clients globally in the web space, both
government and commercial sectors, across all industries, big and not so
big. We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with
accessibility. The response ranges from "What is accessibility?" to "we'll
worry about that later" to "No!"

We educate them on accessibility guidelines and laws. We tell them that it
is cheaper to make a site accessible from the beginning rather than
retrofitting it later. We tell them that it is the right thing to do. Their
response is the same.

The Target ruling is beneficial, if only to raise accessibility awareness in
the commercial sector.  There have been many accessibility lawsuits, most
settled out of court. Settling out of court benefits the individual, but
unfortunately sends the message that accessibility is not taken seriously.
The Target  lawsuit would have been dropped or settled out of court if the
National Federation of the Blind (NFB) had not stepped in to support Bruce
Sexton. 

Hopefully now the commercial sector (at least in the US) will take
accessibility seriously or else open themselves to a lawsuit where a
precedent has been set.


2. People who use the web now would not want to lose accessibility to the
web should they become disabled in the future.

>From a personal perspective, as I grow older I am VERY concerned about
accessibility. My ability to support myself is dependent upon the web. My
preferred shopping method is online. I bank online. I communicate with
friends and family online. My life would change drastically should I no
longer have the ability to use the web.

My children use the web for education, research, and fun.  Thankfully they
are not disabled, but what about other children who have a disability that
prevents them from using the web and its immense resources? Should they be
handicapped further as more education, services, communication methods and
fun stuff move online? What about all the people coming home from wars with
disabilities? The web may be their only hope for a job, information and
communication. More and more services are moving online, especially citizen
services. Should people with disabilities be precluded from access to these
services?

The web provides so many benefits for all people. It¹s important to make
sure all people have access to it.

--my 2 cents 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Dennis Lapcewich]

> That's not what Target are saying. It's like a deaf person comes
> into their store and requests for assistance but no one speaks the
> sign language and he can't lip read. Is it discrimination not to
> have a sign-speaking person in your store just in case a deaf personcomes
in?

You analogy is incorrect.  There are two concepts at work here, reasonable
accommodation and undue hardship.  Although both concepts apply to actual
employment, they can serve as an educational basis for education and
enlightenment in this thread.  You can read about them here --->
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html

Requiring a sign speaker to be employed at every Target store would impose
an undue hardship upon the company, especially if statistics prove the
customer base of deaf customers requiring such assistance is effectively
nonexistent.  There could very well be isolated cases, however, where it
would make sense, if not required.  For example, if a Target store were
located near Gallaudet University  (http://www.gallaudet.edu/x266.xml) it
would make sense to not only offer such services, but outreach to employ
deaf people for their deaf customers.   Then again, creating and
maintaining a commercial web site effectively expands the potential
customer base to where it is quite reasonable to assume that a fair number
of potential customers are disabled and accommodation for their
disabilities not only makes sense, but is warranted.

On the other hand, Target is hard-pressed to prove that offering an
accessible web site is not reasonable accommodation for any of their
customers (including disabled customers), let alone pose an undue hardship
upon the company to maintain such a site.  On the contrary, the tools,
techniques and expertise are readily available to do that no added cost as
part of regular site maintenance.

>From a purely technical perspective, IMHO, there is no defense that Target
(or any other large company) can make that they cannot
design/build/maintain an accessible web site where doing so would impose an
undue burden upon the company.  (More importantly, under the concept of
undue burden, a large employer cannot claim cost as a mitigating factor
when it comes to making a reasonable accommodation.  Target had earnings in
excess of US$59 billion in 2006.)

 In fact, based on maturity of the web environment these days, any company
with a web site (including traditional "mom and pop" businesses), or
desiring one, would be hard pressed to make a claim of undue burden they
cannot have their web site built/maintained according to web standards,
including web accessibility as defined within those standards.  If that
means a fair number of these web building companies (including one person
outfits) need to lift their game, or get out of the web business, then
that's the cost of doing business in a free marketplace.

> It doesn't sound right. Why should anyone be forced to do the right
> thing? You can't force anyone to be nice, generous and good-natured,
> you can only encourage that. Forcing people to do the right thing is
wrong.

Actually, you can, and it happens every day.  Laws and regulations are
enacted all the time to impact upon and change personal behavior.   It's
been that way throughout human history, first as families then expanding
into larger society as social norms and graces.  And when that proved
insufficient as societies matured, governments and laws.  You may claim a
person has the right to get drunk and act like an idiot (which they do),
but society deemed long ago that such egregious behavior in public is not
in society's best interest, nor that individual.  More so, when the
behavior of that individual has a negative impact upon innocent people
(think drunk drivers).

It seems to me the real issue here is ignorance of life these days, with
respect to others who are perceived to be not like you.  Just because
someone is "different" is too often a misguided and immature excuse to
exclude them from being treated equally and on their merits.   We even have
words for the two most pronounced of these attitudes and behaviors, racism
and sexism.  Individuals and companies will always take the easy way out
here, unless society at large says this is wrong.

Target is wrong.


 Dennis Lapcewich   
 USDA Forest Service Webmaster  
 Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA   
 360-891-5024 - Voice | 360-891-5045 - Fax  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   

 "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing 
 it." -- Anonymous  

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Barney Carroll]

Christie Mason wrote:
I think you'd better check your history books.  Changes in culture 
occurred first, creating an environment for the laws to be created - for 
better or worse.  Odd that you chose examples involving a king and a 
dictator, not the best examples of the body politic.


Tell me when I make an incorrect assumption.

• As a society, we don’t believe discrimination based on physical or 
purchase ability should be tolerated – in almost any circumstance possible.


• As a society, we addapt and enforce laws to serve widely-held beliefs.

Andrew was proving that even in the most unpopular and undemocratic of 
cases, law follows culture – and as it turns out The Matrix was a film 
and actually, humans conceive of and enforce law. If a majority supports 
a law and it is passed, I don’t think you’re going to get much success 
parading yourself as a liberator shouting “You’re letting laws determine 
your way of thinking!”. It’s bloody obvious to everyone here that the 
case in point is exactly the opposite.



Regards,
Barney

PS: I would like to call Goodwin’s law and get myself and every other 
participant to this thread banned from this list. Web standards forever, 
eh? If PPK saw this he’d shoot himself.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Patrick Lauke]

Ok everybody...welcome to the *Web Standards Group* mailing list, where we 
discuss *Web Standards*. For discussions on history, sociology, politics, law, 
morals, capitalism, communism, etc, I'm sure there are other places...
 
For those who don't think the DDA and ADA should apply in certain situations, 
and that certain decisions by judges are wrong, take it up with your 
congressman / councillor / equivalent to get legislation changed. No point 
moaning about it here. IANAL, YANAL, and this isn't a legal mailing list.
 
P

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise & Development
University of Salford
Room 113, Faraday House
Salford, Greater Manchester
M5 4WT
UK

T +44 (0) 161 295 4779
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.salford.ac.uk

A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Christie Mason]

On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Christie Mason wrote:


  There are many ways to change a culture, but legislating is not one of
them.



I'm sorry, but I can't let that blatantly false statement go unchallenged.
History is full of examples of changes for the better and for the worse
brought about through legislation - from Magna Carta to the Nazi's racial
laws.


Andrew

=
I think you'd better check your history books.  Changes in culture occurred
first, creating an environment for the laws to be created - for better or
worse.  Odd that you chose examples involving a king and a dictator, not the
best examples of the body politic.

Christie Mason


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Christian Montoya]

On 10/5/07, Christie Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you implying that shopping is a luxury? As horrible as you may find
> it, shopping is actually necessary for human survival in a capitalist
> society. It's the only way we can acquire goods.
>
> =
> Good point, I'm going to chew on that one for awhile.   I still don't think
> a  "right to shop at Target" should be legislated and I suspect there's
> already too much emphasis on "shopping" in society.  I've been reading
> multiple reports that indicate people are letting their mortgage payments
> slide and keeping their credit cards paid up so they can continue to have
> their "right to shop".

So just because some people have credit problems and mortgage trouble,
blind people shouldn't have a right to shop? A right to ownership and
commerce in a capitalist society? A right to self-sustainability? You
need to stop letting random crap get in your way of analyzing the
issue here.

-- 
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.net


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] document.getElementById slow?

[Christian Snodgrass]

As others have said before, direct access will be always be faster than 
the getElementById(), assuming that you are actually getting direct 
access (which I'm not 100% sure about). However, I would say the 
difference in the speed for most pages would be almost unnoticeable, 
probably only a couple of milliseconds difference. The difference would 
likely only become apparent if you had either 1000s (or maybe more) 
elements and/or 100s of getElementById() calls.


Christian Snodgrass
Azure Ronin Web Design


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] document.getElementById slow?

[andy]

Hi Simon,

Direct access will always be faster, here's how the methods work:

getElementById has to recurse through every child element (the approach of
the recursion may vary from browser-to-browser) until it finds an element
that matches the id and then it breaks out of the loop and returns the
element.

Directly accessing the elements using dot notation is less flexible
because it will only work with a specific html structure, but there's no
looping so it's a O(1) complexity algorithm (ie very fast), whereas the
getElementById algorithm gets increasingly complex as the DOM gets more
complicated.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Andrew Ingram

> Hi,
>
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages
> states:
>
> "The best and most supported practice for getting scriptable access to
> an element in an HTML page is to use document.getElementById(id). "
>
> A colleague of mine reckons such access will be much slower than
> accessing the element directly.
>
> So which is faster?
>
> document.forms.myform.elements.field1
>
> or
>
> document.getElementById(field1)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] document.getElementById slow?

[Kepler Gelotte]

> So which is faster?
> 
> document.forms.myform.elements.field1
>
> or
>
> document.getElementById(field1)


Hi Simon,

First of all thanks for breaking the Target thread ;-)

I haven't looked at the code of the Rhino javascript engine, but what your
friend says makes sense. The browser creates a tree structure out of your
HTML (DOM) so a function like getElementById() would have to traverse the
tree to find the element. Using the first form you are giving the javascript
engine a direct path to the element. 

There are ways the writers of the javascript engine could have optimized
getElementById() using hash tables, etc. In reality most DOM structures
aren't huge so traversing a tree shouldn't take that long.

Regards,
Kepler Gelotte



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] document.getElementById slow?

[Simon Cockayne]

Hi,

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages
states:

"The best and most supported practice for getting scriptable access to
an element in an HTML page is to use document.getElementById(id). "

A colleague of mine reckons such access will be much slower than
accessing the element directly.

So which is faster?

document.forms.myform.elements.field1

or

document.getElementById(field1)


Cheers,

Simon


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Andrew Maben]

On Oct 5, 2007, at 4:57 AM, Michael MD wrote:

If a company shuts down their website because they are being sued  
does that make it more accessable?


Examples of this happening?

Andrew







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Andrew Maben]

What is baffling about Target's position here is that while on the  
question of the web site they behave like ignorant trolls, meanwhile  
they managed to really break ground in usability with their  
prescription delivery system - 


go figure...


Andrew







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Andrew Maben]

On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Christie Mason wrote:

There are many ways to change a culture, but legislating is not one  
of them.


I'm sorry, but I can't let that blatantly false statement go  
unchallenged. History is full of examples of changes for the better  
and for the worse brought about through legislation - from Magna  
Carta to the Nazi's racial laws.


Andrew







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest

[Martin Walne]

Thanks for your email. I'll be out of the office until Monday 15 August 2007.

So we can continue to assist you as quickly as possible with any eCommerce 
enquiries please contact helpdesk on 612 8232 3000 or email 'ISD helpdesk'.

If your enquiry relates to the CMS replacement project please contact Chris 
Bloom on ext 72107.

If your enquiry relates to the NOHC website updates please contact James Watts 
on ext 22688.

Regards,
Martin

NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain copyright 
material of Macquarie Bank or third parties. If you are not the intended 
recipient of this email you should not read, print, re-transmit, store or act 
in reliance on this e-mail or any attachments, and should destroy all copies of 
them. Macquarie Bank does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or any 
attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may 
not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Bank.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Barney Carroll]

Michael MD wrote:
Are you implying that shopping is a luxury? As horrible as you may 
find it, shopping is actually necessary for human survival in a 
capitalist society. It's the only way we can acquire goods.


Target is not the only place where people can go shopping ...


OK, so one website per–general–purpose should remain accessible. Shall 
we say Amazon and EBay? Play.com and HMV are pretty cool, but they‘re 
obviously burning with the desire to screw all their users and make 
their site one giant static image. This is within the scope of media 
sales. For information, let‘s keep... Wikipedia. In any case, as 
subscribers to the WSG, we should really start voting soon on which 
websites should be accessible.




I think everyone here at least agrees on one thing ...
we want to see more websites out there become more accessable.

If a company shuts down their website because they are being sued does 
that make it more accessable?


I think not.


I don't see why they'd want to shut it down – I wouldn't if I was them. 
If Target think they‘re better off losing all of their online market 
than expanding it, that's their choice. An incredibly stupid one, but fine.


This is the thing: Target have nothing to lose. You seem to imply it’s 
cruel of us to demand standards of them that they haven’t already 
provided, in case they go and sulk rather than abide by them. That's 
their financial suicide, I‘m really not going to start crying for a 
national corporate giant because they‘re emotional idiots. It‘s an odd 
Americanism that we should treat large financial bodies with the 
sentimental sensitivity usually reserved for puppies and small children 
– because I don't think those notions have much value in the world of 
economics.


Discrimination of your customers and breadth of audience, on the other 
hand, mean something serious to them.



Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Tony Crockford]

On 5 Oct 2007, at 10:03, Geoff Pack wrote:



Tony Crockford wrote:

we don't have "finders-keepers" and "it's mine, I saw it first"
or "give it to me or I'll pull your hair" as social rules outside
the playground (and I suspect our educators are doing their best
to change those rules too...)


Well, actually we do. What do you think happened when the Europeans  
got

to the new world?


that's history and I'm speaking of the now.

my grandfathers generation put cripples on the street as beggars...

;o)



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Geoff Pack]

 
Tony Crockford wrote:
> we don't have "finders-keepers" and "it's mine, I saw it first"  
> or "give it to me or I'll pull your hair" as social rules outside 
> the playground (and I suspect our educators are doing their best 
> to change those rules too...)

Well, actually we do. What do you think happened when the Europeans got
to the new world?

This debate really boils down to rights versus obligations. I suspect
that the people on this list inhabit the full political spectrum from
socialist to libertarian, so we will never get any agreement on the
issue. Maybe we should just let it lie.

Geoff



==
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and
may contain legally privileged or copyright material.   It is intended only for
the use of the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or
any attachments.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete this email from your system.  The ABC does not
represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free.   Before
opening any attachment you should check for viruses.  The ABC's liability is
limited to resupplying any email and attachments
==


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Michael MD]

Are you implying that shopping is a luxury? As horrible as you may find 
it, shopping is actually necessary for human survival in a capitalist 
society. It's the only way we can acquire goods.




Target is not the only place where people can go shopping ...

I think everyone here at least agrees on one thing ...
we want to see more websites out there become more accessable.

If a company shuts down their website because they are being sued does that 
make it more accessable?


I think not.




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Christie Mason]

Christie Mason wrote:
> I can't believe I'm even talking about rights
> and shopping in the same sentence.

Barney

Are you implying that shopping is a luxury? As horrible as you may find
it, shopping is actually necessary for human survival in a capitalist
society. It's the only way we can acquire goods.

=
Good point, I'm going to chew on that one for awhile.   I still don't think
a  "right to shop at Target" should be legislated and I suspect there's
already too much emphasis on "shopping" in society.  I've been reading
multiple reports that indicate people are letting their mortgage payments
slide and keeping their credit cards paid up so they can continue to have
their "right to shop".

Gotta leave now, thanks for provoking deeper ponders on nicety/necessity of
shopping.

Christie Mason


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Barney Carroll]

Christie Mason wrote:

I can't believe I'm even talking about rights
and shopping in the same sentence.


Are you implying that shopping is a luxury? As horrible as you may find 
it, shopping is actually necessary for human survival in a capitalist 
society. It's the only way we can acquire goods.


To elaborate... I don't think it is all creditable to think that online 
stores are a whimsical fancy that people don't really need. For the less 
able of us (cheaper computers and software, impaired senses, impaired 
mobility, less disposable income) these sites are all the more important 
since they can be an incredible enabler.



Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Tony Crockford]

On 5 Oct 2007, at 08:15, Christie Mason wrote:



There are many ways to change a culture, but legislating is not one  
of them.


what you appear to be missing is that when all other attempts fail,  
legislation and enforcement of legislation is the only socially  
acceptable way left.


Target chose not to change to meet the needs of a group of  
disadvantaged people who asked nicely for some simple to implement  
changes that would enable them to use the Target  web site, those  
disadvantaged people have now chosen to test the legislation that  
prevents them being discriminated against in a case against a high  
profile company in the hope that by highlighting the issues of  
discrimination, that other people will be persuaded enough for a  
culture change.


without legislation how would *you* ensure fair treatment for all?

at one point in history women were second class citizens and it took  
a whole heap of direct action and eventual legislation to get to  
where we are today...


;)





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Christie Mason]

From: Ortenzi

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?


Escalators and elevators were not legislated into existence.  Before there
were malls, stores figured out that it was more efficient to build multiple
levels and then make it easy for customers to access those multiple levels.

Christie Mason


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

[Christie Mason]

To boil it down.
No one has a "right to shop" online that is greater than their "right to
shop" at a physical store.  I can't believe I'm even talking about rights
and shopping in the same sentence.

Law is about interpretations of definitions such as "reasonable",
"discrimination", "public" etc.  At least that's my interpretation of their
interpretations. I received the lowest grade in all my years of schooling, a
"C", in Business Law; primarily because I was told that law was based on
"What would the common man decide with X, Y, Z in evidence?"  Don't know if
it's because I'm not a man, but most rulings didn't pass my common sense
test so I was always a bit perplexed by the results.

My impression on this issue so far is that Target did not consciously set
out to discriminate against any group of any definition.  They are just dumb
and have allowed some dink to "sell" them on the idea that this is a good
design, when in fact it ignores the needs of many, which makes in
inaccessible and unusable and puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

There are many ways to change a culture, but legislating is not one of them.

Christie Mason




[1] we don't have "finders-keepers" and "it's mine, I saw it first"
or "give it to me or I'll pull your hair" as social rules outside the
playground (and I suspect our educators are doing their best to
change those rules too...)

[2] gunsol, alchohol, fireworks, drugs etc all have legislation to
control their commerce.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Or Golan]

>Target are saying "If you are blind, you are worthless. We only take
>money from people who aren't like you." In a physical environment the
>equivalent would be turning them away at the door. Would you tolerate
>that if it was based on gender, religion or race?"


That's not what Target are saying. It's like a deaf person comes into their
store and requests for assistance but no one speaks the sign language and he
can't lip read. Is it discrimination not to have a sign-speaking person in
your store just in case a deaf person comes in?

>we have to
>force corporations to do good things.

It doesn't sound right. Why should anyone be forced to do the right thing?
You can't force anyone to be nice, generous and good-natured, you can only
encourage that. Forcing people to do the right thing is wrong.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Nick Cowie]

Well the first round has been decided a couple of days ago:
http://www.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=221
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4

the DDA does apply to websites
let more legal battles begin


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Or Golan]

>Target are saying "If you are blind, you are worthless. We only take
>money from people who aren't like you." In a physical environment the
>equivalent would be turning them away at the door. Would you tolerate
>that if it was based on gender, religion or race?"


That's not what Target are saying. It's like a deaf person comes into their
store and requests for assistance but no one speaks the sign language and he
can't lip read. Is it discrimination not to have a sign-speaking person in
your store just in case a deaf person comes in?

>we have to
>force corporations to do good things.

It doesn't sound right. Why should anyone be forced to do the right thing?
You can't force anyone to be nice, generous and good-natured, you can only
encourage that. Forcing people to do the right thing is wrong.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

[Or Golan]

>Target are saying "If you are blind, you are worthless. We only take
>money from people who aren't like you." In a physical environment the
>equivalent would be turning them away at the door. Would you tolerate
>that if it was based on gender, religion or race?"


That's not what Target are saying. It's like a deaf person comes into their
store and requests for assistance but no one speaks the sign language and he
can't lip read. Is it discrimination not to have a sign-speaking person in
your store just in case a deaf person comes in?

>we have to
>force corporations to do good things.

It doesn't sound right. Why should anyone be forced to do the right thing?
You can't force anyone to be nice, generous and good-natured, you can only
encourage that. Forcing people to do the right thing is wrong.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***