Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers, screenreaders and google. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers, etc to the client since the aren't considered with the computing world beyond their own desktop for the most part. Those who do ask get the speech of the year and come away knowing that it's a major part of my methodology. I do it for my own satisfaction. Each site is a little better than the last and comes a little closer to being the perfectly marked-up document that it should be to properly function of all devices. Does this take longer or cost more? I'll say not. My PHP coding goes 10 times faster since I use the codeigniter framework to handle the typical BS, my javascript goes 10 time faster since I use jQuery to handle the typical BS, and I have written enough sites that I have a pretty good process going, the result being a better site put together more quickly. For some developers it will take longer and cost more. I know people that shudder to think of making a navigation bar by hand, forever stuck to dreamweaver's horribly bloated javascript rollover menu. For them its simply not an option. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers, screenreaders and google. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers, etc to the client since the aren't considered with the computing world beyond their own desktop for the most part. Those who do ask get the speech of the year and come away knowing that it's a major part of my methodology. I do it for my own satisfaction. Each site is a little better than the last and comes a little closer to being the perfectly marked-up document that it should be to properly function of all devices. Does this take longer or cost more? I'll say not. My PHP coding goes 10 times faster since I use the codeigniter framework to handle the typical BS, my javascript goes 10 time faster since I use jQuery to handle the typical BS, and I have written enough sites that I have a pretty good process going, the result being a better site put together more quickly. For some developers it will take longer and cost more. I know people that shudder to think of making a navigation bar by hand, forever stuck to dreamweaver's horribly bloated javascript rollover menu. For them its simply not an option. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** 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
My thought exactly. If you were an architect, would you ask a shopping centre client: do you want wheelchair access? Elizabeth -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Pack Sent: Monday, 8 October 2007 3:10 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: 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! Why bother asking? You don't need you clients' permission to build a site properly. Geoff. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: 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! So you build poor sites unless specifically told to build them to standards? Ouch. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Completely agree with most of the comments. Accessibility ensures that the site is usable, not just for disabled users but for ALL your users. It should come at no extra cost and only if the designer goes out of their way to deliver an inaccessible site does it become a problem. Adding alt attributes, using semantic HTML, ensuring that JavaScript isn't used for critical functionality etc shouldn't be nice to have's for the client, they should be built in as standard by any reputable web designer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave Woods http://www.dave-woods.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 08/10/2007, Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: 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! So you build poor sites unless specifically told to build them to standards? Ouch. *** 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
Oh I agree with what is being said. But consider, for a moment. You ask do you want a good quality web site. The clients replies, quality means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care. Here in lies the problem. It can be the worst tag soup inaccessible non standards nightmare, and it will look good (in all browsers), client doesn't have people with disabilities (that they know of) as customers. So its all sweet. Right? Why bother taking the time to make something that is good quality when at the end of the day the client just wants cheap and functional and looks nice. You and I scream, SEO, 1 in 5 people with a disability, future proofing etc.. But still the client says, ranks okay in Google for me. They are willing a pay again for a make over in total in few years, Isn't that the way. In few years it will all be different so it will cost me the same again, I can't see a cost saving, they say. So the client says Why should I use you with your standards and accessibility, Cowboy Design Joe here is half the cost and looks the same, same Google ranking. Thats the true cost of Accessibility. -- Gary Barber Blog: manwithnoblog.com Twitter: twitter.com/tuna Christian Snodgrass wrote: I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers, screenreaders and google. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers, etc to the client since the aren't considered with the computing world beyond their own desktop for the most part. Those who do ask get the speech of the year and come away knowing that it's a major part of my methodology. I do it for my own satisfaction. Each site is a little better than the last and comes a little closer to being the perfectly marked-up document that it should be to properly function of all devices. Does this take longer or cost more? I'll say not. My PHP coding goes 10 times faster since I use the codeigniter framework to handle the typical BS, my javascript goes 10 time faster since I use jQuery to handle the typical BS, and I have written enough sites that I have a pretty good process going, the result being a better site put together more quickly. For some developers it will take longer and cost more. I know people that shudder to think of making a navigation bar by hand, forever stuck to dreamweaver's horribly bloated javascript rollover menu. For them its simply not an option. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** 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
Gary Barber Why bother taking the time to make something that is good quality when at the end of the day the client just wants cheap and functional and looks nice. Professionalism? So the client says Why should I use you with your standards and accessibility, Cowboy Design Joe here is half the cost and looks the same, same Google ranking. I find that building stuff with standards has dramatically reduced my development time, which in turn reflects quite favourably to the cost I can quote when doing my occasional bits of freelance. Of course, at the same time I'm also quite picky as to which projects I take...and if the initial discussion with a client already starts off with something like that guy can do it cheaper, then that's not the kind of client I want/need (as in the long run, they'll ALWAYS be more trouble than they're worth). IMHO, of course. 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
On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Patrick Lauke wrote: as in the long run, they'll ALWAYS be more trouble than they're worth Yep. An old truism: the less they pay, the more they want. But as to the cost of compliant, accessible HTML, does anyone *not* find it quicker and easier (and hence cheaper) to write than tag soup? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Gary Barber wrote: You ask do you want a good quality web site. The clients replies, quality means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care. Here in lies the problem. That shouldn't be seen as a problem. For me at least it takes longer, and cost more, to create a site consisting of low quality code from scratch, than a good one, so that's not the kind of question I would ask in the first place. As I see it: what may be good accessibility-wise is even better for the developer during the work-process, so I base my work on quality in order to save time - and money. Why bother taking the time to make something that is good quality when at the end of the day the client just wants cheap and functional and looks nice. That's what the client wants. That's not often what s\he gets. Dysfunctional and anything but nice seems to be the norm for both cheap, and plenty of not so cheap, sites. So the client says Why should I use you with your standards and accessibility, Cowboy Design Joe here is half the cost and looks the same, same Google ranking. Then Cowboy Design Joe may get a cheap client. At least I won't - and thanks heaven for that. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. Statements like this illustrate a total lack of understanding that I am dismayed to encounter in this group. Standards compliance does not equal accessibility. It's just one part of it, and arguably the easiest part. As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers, screenreaders and google. That's your choice but don't kid yourself that you're building accessible websites. You aren't. You are building standards-compliant websites, and that's not the same thing. You are defining accessibility to be the bits you like doing, and you're pretending the difficult stuff does not exist or isn't important or isn't your responsibility. It can be very challenging to design content that people can understand when it is linearised or if they can only see a small part of the screen or they can only use a keyboard or keyboard emulator to navigate. To say that it's someone else's problem is a total cop-out and is unworthy of a professional designer. Of course it would be nice if user agents were better than they are, but some of these issues of comprehension are down to people, not the user agents. If a web designer's job is to communicate to people (and I'll bet that's what your customers expect), you ought to be taking people into account in your designs. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: 08 October 2007 07:21 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers, screenreaders and google. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers, etc to the client since the aren't considered with the computing world beyond their own desktop for the most part. Those who do ask get the speech of the year and come away knowing that it's a major part of my methodology. I do it for my own satisfaction. Each site is a little better than the last and comes a little closer to being the perfectly marked-up document that it should be to properly function of all devices. Does this take longer or cost more? I'll say not. My PHP coding goes 10 times faster since I use the codeigniter framework to handle the typical BS, my javascript goes 10 time faster since I use jQuery to handle the typical BS, and I have written enough sites that I have a pretty good process going, the result being a better site put together more quickly. For some developers it will take longer and cost more. I know people that shudder to think of making a navigation bar by hand, forever stuck to dreamweaver's horribly bloated javascript rollover menu. For them its simply not an option. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
My thought exactly. If you were an architect, would you ask a shopping centre client: do you want wheelchair access? The difference in that scenario is that the client would generally not expect the architect to skip the ramps and lower their fees since it's only a few people (although I've no doubt it does happen at times). Building codes/laws currently have a higher level of respect than web accessibility legislation. Web accessibilty laws haven't been heavily enforced in most countries, hence the need for cases like Target - to make the laws into reality. -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an accessible site and there's every chance that valid, semantic markup could be just as or even more inaccessible than a site using tables for layout and inline styles so I do agree and that wasn't the point I was personally trying to put across. If accessibility is considered by a skilled web designer who understands how users are likely to be impacted by different aspects of accessibility then these issues can be dealt with at the outset rather than trying to implement accessibility afterwards. I wasn't trying to belittle accessibility or suggest that it was easy but with the right skills and knowledge it should cost very little to implement single A compliance at the very least which in my opinion far too many websites fail to do. Considering aspects of the design that you've mentioned along with things like colour contrast, colour blindness, type of device being used, browser font-size etc go over and above web standards. However, if they are considered at the beginning of a project then it's not something that will add a huge amount of cost to development compared with another company who only decide at the end of development that they now need to consider accessibility. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave Woods http://www.dave-woods.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 08/10/2007, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. Statements like this illustrate a total lack of understanding that I am dismayed to encounter in this group. Standards compliance does not equal accessibility. It's just one part of it, and arguably the easiest part. As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers, screenreaders and google. That's your choice but don't kid yourself that you're building accessible websites. You aren't. You are building standards-compliant websites, and that's not the same thing. You are defining accessibility to be the bits you like doing, and you're pretending the difficult stuff does not exist or isn't important or isn't your responsibility. It can be very challenging to design content that people can understand when it is linearised or if they can only see a small part of the screen or they can only use a keyboard or keyboard emulator to navigate. To say that it's someone else's problem is a total cop-out and is unworthy of a professional designer. Of course it would be nice if user agents were better than they are, but some of these issues of comprehension are down to people, not the user agents. If a web designer's job is to communicate to people (and I'll bet that's what your customers expect), you ought to be taking people into account in your designs. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: 08 October 2007 07:21 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone how to run their own business, or design a website for that matter, but I want to state for the record that anyone on this list should be doing there very best to make the best sites they can. Adding alt attributes to images and doing other minor things that make pages more adaptable to devices and more user-friendly is the right thing to do. Blind people? Accessibility is not about blind people. As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers, screenreaders and google. I take the responsibility upon myself to deliver a product that works on all of them. I also make no guarantees. I don't mention accessibility or other browsers
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Woods Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:01 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an accessible site ... And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !? Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Well, there is also some discussion of liability issues for architects who design non-ada compliant sites. Check this out: http://hansonbridgett.com/newsletters/ConstructionAlert/ CAlert080801.html the last paragraph is key: While designers are not directly liable under lawsuits for the failure to design or construct in accordance with the ADA, this does not mean that the designer will escape all liability for designs that do not comply with the Act's requirements. It is very likely that any owner or operator sued for a project designed out of compliance will probably assert a negligence claim against the designer. But such a claim will concern standard of care issues, rather than the civil rights claims involved in an ADA suit. While I am not sure how this would apply to web designers vs. architects, but I certainly could see like in the case of Target, that if the web designer was an outside firm they could be included in the suit. At some point, a designer of an inaccessible website is going to get sued (its just a matter of time IMHO) and I certainly don't want to be that test case. -- Kevin Murphy Webmaster: Information and Marketing Services Western Nevada College www.wnc.edu 775-445-3326 P.S. Please note that my e-mail and website address have changed from wncc.edu to wnc.edu. On Oct 8, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote: My thought exactly. If you were an architect, would you ask a shopping centre client: do you want wheelchair access? The difference in that scenario is that the client would generally not expect the architect to skip the ramps and lower their fees since it's only a few people (although I've no doubt it does happen at times). Building codes/laws currently have a higher level of respect than web accessibility legislation. Web accessibilty laws haven't been heavily enforced in most countries, hence the need for cases like Target - to make the laws into reality. -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** 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
And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !? Guideline, not standard. 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
Gary Barber wrote: Oh I agree with what is being said. But consider, for a moment. You ask do you want a good quality web site. The clients replies, quality means expensive. As long as it looks good I don't care. So the client says Why should I use you with your standards and accessibility, Cowboy Design Joe here is half the cost and looks the same, same Google ranking. Thats the true cost of Accessibility. I hope you're not saying this in fear of losing business to cowboy design! I'd tell them to call Cowboy Design then. The web is too important to cut corners before you even start. It'll be that same person calling me in a year or two saying that they hate their site. There's plenty of people all around me that build crap sites for cheap. Always will be. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
I've had more success in presenting standards compliance and accessibility issues as usability issues. Is the site usable for people that are color blind, wear bifocals, have different navigation preferences, have limited use of hands, etc? Then it becomes a discussion about which options to implement, not about if there should be any options implemented.That gives the decision makers the appearance of being in control, and they like that. Of course, while that discussion is going on, you are also planning to implement things like img attributes and guiding them towards the best options. Biz owners tend to understand usability when it's presented in terms of their user/ customers - how to attract them, how to get them to buy more. You will be more successful in selling standards compliance and accessibility if you are perceived as the voice of your customer's customer. 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
It is, but compliance with the WCAG doesn't automatically guarantee an accessible site, so my statement stands. To build websites that are truly accessible it is necessary to understand how people perceive the content and interact with it. The WCAG are a good start but they only get you so far. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 October 2007 16:13 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Woods Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:01 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an accessible site ... And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !? Mike *** 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
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:30 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility And here's me thinking that WCAG 1.0 _WAS_ a web standard !? Guideline, not standard. And HTML 4.01 ? That's a recommendation isn't it? (Not a standard either?) Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
What you say is true up to a point, but really only applies to trivial content such as plain text, images and simple forms. I suspect that these are the sort of sites people have in mind when they say accessibility is easy and doesn't cost anything. The complexity and cost of accessible design increase significantly when the content is more complex, such as very large forms (we have discussed a few real examples in this list), multimedia and interactive e-learning (especially when it is discovery-based rather than task-based). Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Woods Sent: 08 October 2007 16:01 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility Standards compliance doesn't automatically guarantee an accessible site and there's every chance that valid, semantic markup could be just as or even more inaccessible than a site using tables for layout and inline styles so I do agree and that wasn't the point I was personally trying to put across. If accessibility is considered by a skilled web designer who understands how users are likely to be impacted by different aspects of accessibility then these issues can be dealt with at the outset rather than trying to implement accessibility afterwards. I wasn't trying to belittle accessibility or suggest that it was easy but with the right skills and knowledge it should cost very little to implement single A compliance at the very least which in my opinion far too many websites fail to do. Considering aspects of the design that you've mentioned along with things like colour contrast, colour blindness, type of device being used, browser font-size etc go over and above web standards. However, if they are considered at the beginning of a project then it's not something that will add a huge amount of cost to development compared with another company who only decide at the end of development that they now need to consider accessibility. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave Woods http://www.dave-woods.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 08/10/2007, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. Statements like this illustrate a total lack of understanding that I am dismayed to encounter in this group. Standards compliance does not equal accessibility. It's just one part of it, and arguably the easiest part. As a designer/developer I don't really care about blind people. I don't consider them (gasp!). I do consider PDAs, cellphones, text-only browsers, screenreaders and google. That's your choice but don't kid yourself that you're building accessible websites. You aren't. You are building standards-compliant websites, and that's not the same thing. You are defining accessibility to be the bits you like doing, and you're pretending the difficult stuff does not exist or isn't important or isn't your responsibility. It can be very challenging to design content that people can understand when it is linearised or if they can only see a small part of the screen or they can only use a keyboard or keyboard emulator to navigate. To say that it's someone else's problem is a total cop-out and is unworthy of a professional designer. Of course it would be nice if user agents were better than they are, but some of these issues of comprehension are down to people, not the user agents. If a web designer's job is to communicate to people (and I'll bet that's what your customers expect), you ought to be taking people into account in your designs. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Snodgrass Sent: 08 October 2007 07:21 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility I agree completely with you. With the exception of your API specifics, I think the same exact way. The cost of adding accessibility should really be zero. It takes no extra time or effort if you are designing and coding your websites the proper, because the methods used for accessibility are also the standards for basic web design. Also, many of the changes that help make a website accessible are also very good for things like cross-browser compatibility and S.E.O. Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design Joseph Taylor wrote: McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: We always ask the client if they require that the site comply with accessibility. Why not say Would you like a shitty website, or a good quality website? Well-made shouldn't be an extra feature... In fact, since its clearly cheaper and easier to make a crappy website, why don't you just mock up pages in Illustrator, save the whole thing as an image with no alt attribute, and use that instead of a real page? Thats real cheap and easy. Heck, there are people that actually do that! Most people will never know! I cannot tell anyone
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Designer wrote: Look at the work he's produced : http://www.seftonphoto.co.uk. sigh yes, I'm afraid you're right... I've been hand-coding since the day I found Pagemill (remember Pagemill?!?) wouldn't do what I wanted. And there's certainly a learning curve involved in transitioning from table-based layout, but well worth it in terms of increased efficiencies. But then I did a view source on the page you mention - my heart sank at the sight of the dreaded MM_preloadImages()... And of course, as long as web development professionals use WYSIWYG (and as long as those professionals never look to see the mess that is in fact what you get) then I guess sloppy sites will be cheaper. And why suits like the Tt class action are, sadly, probably the only way that a truly accessible web will ever come about. Thanks - now I'm depressed! Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Designer wrote: Andrew Maben wrote: But as to the cost of compliant, accessible HTML, does anyone *not* find it quicker and easier (and hence cheaper) to write than tag soup? Recently, his son got involved and mailed me to say that a friend of his was doing it for nothing and he could do it very quickly, so he was replacing my stuff with his friend's. It would be unprofessional to name names, so i won't, but suffice to say that this person is not an amateur. You want a laugh? Look at the work he's produced : http://www.seftonphoto.co.uk. Thing is, all my effort and work to provide him with a decent site has gone down the tubes. Standards? A quick look at the code suggests it's more a case for crying. You say this person is not an amateur - but one look shows that they have used Dreamweaver without ever looking at the code that Dreamweaver generates. I stopped training people in how to use Dreamweaver when MX first came in back in 2004 - (and I've been doing penance for training people to use WYSIWYG editors ever since!). This is what we're up against - the lobby for who web design is quick and dirty and done with a WYSIWYG editor without any regard for the code, standards, accessibility or very much else (not a single alt attribute on the page I looked at!). You must be gutted, Bob! Andrew - this is what we're facing. It is easier to write compliant and accessible HTML - but how many designers are writing code at all (or care at all about standards?). The gap between WYSIWYG users and web artisans is growing wider - not narrowing! Simon www.simonmoss.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Steve Green wrote: The complexity and cost of accessible design increase significantly when the content is more complex, such as very large forms (we have discussed a few real examples in this list), multimedia and interactive e-learning (especially when it is discovery-based rather than task-based). You're right of course. If a design _relies_ on screen, mouse, keyboard in the normal sense, then it is nearly impossible to make such a design accessible, or usable, if any of those input/output devices goes missing, are replaced with something else, or are changed from the norm. This includes visitors with issues/needs that deviate from the norm, who may still use the normal devices in a near-but-not-quite-normal way. The only way to make that work is to take away the _reliances_, and that may mean: 1: a completely different design without such reliances. 2: a new, and accessible, base that everything else can stay on top of. 3: lots of workarounds/additions to make main parts of the design somewhat accessible - for most. 4: side-by-side alternatives. Of course this costs time and money - especially if client demands are for visual perfection compared to a graphic design. Few clients and/or graphic designers see anything but the visual, and they rarely ever use their own creations to such a degree that they realize any visual or non-visual weaknesses beyond their own norm. So, we may definitely have problems - with clients and graphic designers. The question is whether we should solve the problems and have reasonably happy visitors, make the paying client happy, forget the whole issue, or leave the job to whoever wants it. I prefer to combine the two first options if at all possible, but I'm no stranger to the last option. I will never let myself forget the whole issue for any price, so if the other parties involved are not willing to compromise in order to reach a reasonably well-working solution, then I'm not either. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
On Oct 8, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Joseph Taylor wrote: There's plenty of people all around me that build crap sites for cheap. Always will be. If I may add, there are plenty of people all around me that build crap sites for em$$$/em and I had worked with a few of them - my insistence on building accessible site only got myself fired. Always will be if there is no law telling them they must build accessible websites. My dilemma is, I don't want the law tells me I must build accessible websites, and I don't want to build accessible sites because I afraid people with disability might sue me. I want to build accessible sites because that is the right thing to do and I have pride in what I do. Sometimes I do wonder, are some people (including me) in the WSG list live in our fancy world. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Tee G. Peng wrote: I want to build accessible sites because that is the right thing to do and I have pride in what I do. Pride may be a costly commodity in more than one way. It sure beats money as driving-force for real growth though. Sometimes I do wonder, are some people (including me) in the WSG list live in our fancy world. Yes, I think we are, and I also think that's a good thing - as long as we can afford to. Living in our own fancy world sure sounds, and feels, better than having a second life[1] :-) regards Georg [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
McLaughlin, Gail G wrote: 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! Why bother asking? You don't need you clients' permission to build a site properly. 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
On 5 Oct 2007, at 06:02, Christie Mason wrote: No one has a right to shop at Target. I think that's the real point of disagreement in this whole discussion. As a society we have allowed the concept of ownership and commerce[1] and in order to enable those concepts to work we have rules about how ownership works and how commerce works, e.g what is theft, and who can you sell what to[2]. We also have rules about how people should be treated, e.g women should be treated the same as men, children should be cared for not abused, and you shouldn't treat some different because they're not the same as you. so if we have a rule that says you can't provide a service to one group of people and not another, then yes, everyone does have a *right* to shop at Target. explain to me why that's not true and I might be able to understand the rest of your argument. Tony. [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] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
On 10/5/07, Christie Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. The case has nothing to do with that. The case is deciding whether they have the right to discriminate against the blind. Let's all at least get on board with facts, ok? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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
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
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
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
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
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
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] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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] Cost of Accessibility
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
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 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] ***
[WSG] Cost of Accessibility and WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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] ***
[WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 from the database and embed it in the img tag so that it looks something like this, depending on what script/language/framework you're using. img src=%=(rsProduct(prodImageSmall)% alt=%=rsProduct(prodName)% / What I also don't understand on the Target site is the extensive use of image maps, and graphics for navigation. They cost more to code and maintain than dynamically filtering lists for navigation. 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? 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 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 about how we behave in our community, the social interaction. It's about legislating a fair go for all (sorry for the Aussie colloquialism), regardless of race, gender, height, eye colour, political views, religion or ability. We need to protect our community, our inclusiveness for all. Historically, the world has had times where these ideals have been disregarded, and I cannot think of any examples where it has ended well. Accessibility is how to behave properly in a mannerly fashion towards all. Let's face it, inaccessibility is basically very bad manners. Most manners are socially re-enforced, however, when manners degrade beyond a certain point, then they are legislated against, for example, jay-walking, swearing, vandalism, theft, etc. That's what we are talking about: legislating against very bad manners, that is, discrimination against disability. Profitability or cost doesn't come into the equation. Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
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 --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
-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 .au) to provide physical accessibilty for their buildings. Christie Replies Yes Target, and other public spaces, have been forced into accessible parking, sidewalks and bathrooms, municipally owned spaces actually lagged for-profit spaces by many years. But, and this is a big but, they have not been forced into making their display of products to purchase, or the location of those products, accessible to physically challenged people. In a Target, or any other store, there are no supportive technologies enforced to read aisle signage, location of checkout counters, the difference between a box of corn flakes and a box of poison, etc. In many ways, laws that attempt to force behavior do more harm than good. They don't eliminate prejudice, they just force people to be more subtle in their expressions of prejudice. The hiring of disabled people actually decreased after protective laws were passed. It's much easier to hide why you didn't hire a disabled person than to fire, with merit, someone in a protected group after you've hired them. 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 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. --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** 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] ***