Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

2007-10-08 Thread Joseph Taylor

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

2007-10-08 Thread Christian Snodgrass
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

2007-10-08 Thread Elizabeth Spiegel
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

2007-10-08 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-08 Thread Dave Woods
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

2007-10-08 Thread Gary Barber
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

2007-10-08 Thread Patrick Lauke
 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

2007-10-08 Thread Andrew Maben

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

2007-10-08 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

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

2007-10-08 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-08 Thread Ben Buchanan
 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

2007-10-08 Thread Dave Woods
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

2007-10-08 Thread michael.brockington
-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

2007-10-08 Thread Kevin Murphy
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

2007-10-08 Thread Patrick Lauke
 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

2007-10-08 Thread Joseph Taylor


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

2007-10-08 Thread Christie Mason
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

2007-10-08 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-08 Thread michael.brockington
-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

2007-10-08 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-08 Thread Andrew Maben

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

2007-10-08 Thread Simon Moss

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

2007-10-08 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

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

2007-10-08 Thread Tee G. Peng


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

2007-10-08 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

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

2007-10-07 Thread Geoff Pack
 
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

2007-10-05 Thread Tony Crockford


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

2007-10-05 Thread Christian Montoya
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

2007-10-05 Thread 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: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

2007-10-05 Thread 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: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

2007-10-05 Thread 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

2007-10-05 Thread 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

2007-10-05 Thread 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

2007-10-05 Thread 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

2007-10-05 Thread 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

2007-10-05 Thread 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

2007-10-05 Thread 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]
***

Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

2007-10-05 Thread 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: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility

2007-10-05 Thread 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] Cost of Accessibility

2007-10-05 Thread 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

2007-10-05 Thread 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

2007-10-05 Thread 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]
***



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

2007-10-05 Thread 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]
***


[WSG] Cost of Accessibility

2007-10-04 Thread Christie Mason
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

2007-10-04 Thread Katrina

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

2007-10-04 Thread Webb, KerryA
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

2007-10-04 Thread Christie Mason


-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

2007-10-04 Thread Christie Mason
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]
***