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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
.
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
-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
] [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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
Christie wrote:
. . .
It's very, very difficult to defend the Target site, it's an unusable
mess
so I don't use it, but Target does have the right to have a bad site.
Not if they lose this case, they don't.
Kerry
---
-Original Message-
From: Ben Buchanan
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:35 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
I believe web accessibility is in society's best interests. Companies
should be forced to do it, just as they are forced (at least in .au
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.
46 matches
Mail list logo
