Christian Montoya wrote:
Sounds like he has no idea how simple it is to make a website
accessible. But that's not the big deal here. If you look at all the
comments at Cnet, you'll see that a lot of people agree with Mr.
Gaddis... which brings to light a bigger social problem behind the
fight for accessible websites; a lot of people, at least in the U.S.,
just don't care about making accommodations for people with
disabilities. There isn't any convincing them otherwise, because you
can't make them compassionate; all we can do is hope that the Target
lawsuit inspires a precedent for accessibility so that people like Mr.
Gaddis have no choice but to consider making websites accessible.
I think the reaction against enforced accessibility in cases like this
is more to do with that word : enforced. It amounts, rightly or wrongly,
to a violation of one's right to 'do as one chooses'. The objections
cited, such as the sarcastic suggestion that we sue the radio because
the deaf can't hear it, does actually make a valid point and highlights
the senseless extremes that one could go to.
Far better to approach the problem by <em>suggesting<em/> that it's a
'good idea' to do x and y because the resulting site can be visually
identical but more accessible. Screaming and shouting and making money
for lawyers is just fanaticism, and considerably discouraging. The
answer, like in so many cases, is in education, not in applying a
straight jacket!
Just my 2p's worth.
Bob McClelland
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
