W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: free/not free proprietary

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0205021146580.31645-100000@smarty.smart.net>
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Phill Jenkins wrote:

> starting a new subject thread - and adding one reply comment

well I sort of started this and I was more meaning "free" as in Open
Source not neccesarily "free" as in price.  although the regs say you
cannot charge more for the accessible version than you do everyone else
and the access features can not be charged for in and of themselves

(not talking about specialized stuff like JAWS)


> Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>@w3.org on 05/01/2002 09:21:41 PM
> Subject:    [w3c-wai-ig] <none>
> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Martin Sloan wrote:
> > In relation to this whole 'free/not free' proprietary argument, my
> > reading of the legislation is that it only applies to software that a
> > disabled person specifically requires to access the site. I.e. not to
> > downloads which everyone needs to use the site - there is a
> > difference. For instance, everyone needs to download Acrobat to view
> > PDF files, but if this was charged for then disabled people as a group
> > would be no worse off than those who are not.
> Adobe's viewer is proprietary, and Adobe would (presumably) be within
> their rights to charge for it.
> But the PDF format is published, and AFAIK there are no restrictions
> on software supporting it.  Free viewers such as xpdf and gv have
> been around for years, and free software is also available to create PDF.
> Extending your hypothetical case suggestion seems to raise further issues:
> Now, supposing there were additional accessibility features for PDF
> that were supported by some viewer, but only in a viewer costing
> serious money.  What then?
> And how does it affect the situation if the accessibility features present
> problems - such as proprietary, unpublished extensions and/or onerous
> licencing requirements - in the way of free software supporting them?
> This is a very pertinent question in the context of microsoft's
> policy of developing proprietary protocols and using lawyers to prevent
> third-party products working with them.
> > Although that could be interpreted to mean that screen readers should
> > be provided free...
> As of course they are, though the free products may lack the marketing
> budgets of commercial offerings.
> --
> Nick Kew
> Phill writes:
> The free ones may also lack the technical support and features provided by
> so called for sale products.  But U.S. ADA and other disability rights
> regulations I'm familiar with don't require the owner to provide any of the
> assistive technology.  For example, brick & mortar building owner's are not
> required to also provide the motorized wheelchair, only to provide the ramp
> and not charge for using it.  The ramp slope may not be gradual enough for
> all wheelchair users and or wheelchair types.  Manual wheelchairs cost less
> than motorized ones and require more arm strength to operate up a ramp.
> The building owner and or architect's responsibility is to meet the ramp
> technical accessibility standards.  Also, how the ramp is constructed,
> using proprietary patented truss, or a patented concrete forms, or plain
> old brick and mortar and is not part of the accessibility standard.
> In my opinion, the web developer has a responsibility to meet the technical
> accessibility standards for the website being built, and not charge any
> extra to persons who have a disability, but he doesn't have to provide the
> screen reader.
> I think the more this list and the W3C working groups bring into
> consideration the policy issues, the more we get away from our charter to
> focus on the technical accessibility issues that need to be solved by the
> author, browser, assistive technology, and end user in concert together.
> Phill Jenkins

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 11:39:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:19 UTC