W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: the market hasn't spoken - it hasn't bothered to listened

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:03:41 +0100
Message-ID: <468816AD.2030006@splintered.co.uk>
To: Gavin Pearce <gavinp@tbs.uk.com>
CC: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>

Gavin Pearce wrote:
> I agree with accessibility, but then I also agree with good business
> practise.
> 
> And it is good business practise to appeal to the majority rather than the
> minority.
> 
> Yes we shouldn't discriminate, but then we shouldn't discriminate against
> able bodied users just for the minority.

I've been away for a while, trying to catch up on all the discussions 
here...so forgive me if I misunderstand the context, but: how are a few 
optional attributes in a language discriminating against able bodied users?

> For example - my sailing club recently shut down because it couldn't afford
> to comply with the disability requirements, we couldn't provide disabled
> access to the sailing dinghy, and couldn't afford to. Now whilst disabled
> people do do sailing, we have no disabled members, and none have ever
> visited or made an effort to find out about the club. Yet the club was
> shut-down because of it.

Not wanting to sidetrack this discussion (feel free to answer off-list), 
but: the law asks for "reasonable adjustments". In this case, which 
adjustment was not made (because it was impractical or too expensive)? 
Was it just a speculative closure ("we may be sued, so we'd rather close 
the club") or was there an actual complaint lodged against the club? As 
it stands, your account seems a tad misleading.

> I suppose my point is everyone knows what they should do now days, and it
> can in most cases be done without affecting the majority of users, but in
> the rare cases where accessibility would make an object less desirable for
> able-bodied people, we should stick with the majority of internet users -
> rather than turning it into something accessible just so one or two people
> can view it perhaps, sometimes, maybe not, never.

In contrast with physical goods and services, it's actually fairly 
straightforward to accommodate a very large number of users, regardless 
of disability, without affecting "the majority" one bit. Which things, 
specifically, are you ranting about here? The provision of a simple link 
to a text transcript or similar?

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 21:03:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT