You make an easy error Chris.
Contrary to popular belief, websites are NOT visual, there is a lot
of text and code in there, placed by good website designers, to allow
sight-poor people, as well as people who need the text to be large,
or require high contrast text, etc, to "read" the site. SO the
analogy of a car is not valid. Sight-disabled people can have
websites read to them by software on their computer. So they have a
perfectly valid "car" for driving on the "roads", since it can read
for them. So if you put the road signs where they can't read them,
and make the text too small and the same colour as the background,
you are consciously preventing them from taking part in society.
People with disabilities have software that can read the site to them
and allow them to get the information or shop that store as well. If
the design doesn't take this into account, and it is not difficult to
do and actually makes the site a better site, easier to navigate and
more search engine friendly and load quicker, then it negates them as
a possible customer. Just like a newly built shop - if you don't put
in easy wheelchair access you remove those people from your possible
customer base. The GREAT thing about the internet is that is a useful
tool for people who have difficulty getting round and is a useful
tool to help them have a half-decent life.
So when you build a new site, and design and code to acceptable web
standards, then those people with sight or motion disabilities can
shop too, because the designers took them into account when they were
designing it. NOt EXTRA work, just different design.
Your "screw-them" attitude smells of intolerance and forgets the fact
that "all men (people) are created equal" and have equal rights to
services and resources. And the funny thing is, it only takes
intelligence, not extra money, to make it happen!
On Oct 3 2007, at 22:04, Chris Wilson wrote:
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like.
Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle
manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for
accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and
lack of is in no was discriminatory.
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.joiz.com
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
