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

RE: GW Micro Helps Make Macromedia Flash Content Accessible to People Who Are Blind

From: RUST Randal <RRust@COVANSYS.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:21:50 -0500
Message-ID: <37925254B67DD311876C009027B0FF9201D3AA4E@cbscolex01.cbsinc.com>
To: "WAI (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Twice I have begun composing lengthy replies to this.  Twice I've stopped.

I prefer to accept the reality that things are not perfect, and to do the
best I can to make the best of the situation.

That's all I have left to say on this issue.

Randal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles F. Munat [mailto:chas@munat.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:52 PM
>To: WAI (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: GW Micro Helps Make Macromedia Flash Content Accessible to
>People Who Are Blind
>
>
>RUST Randal wrote:
>>>I use a Macintosh
>>>and it is bad enough not being able to see many websites because they
>>>are coded for the Microsoft users of this world.
>>
>> You can't fault web designers for building sites that work 
>in the browser
>> that is used by about 91% of internet users
>> (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp).
>
>Yes I can. I can because I believe that human beings have 
>rights. I can 
>because I believe that accessibility is a human right. I can because I 
>do NOT believe that the profit motive is the only legitimate 
>motive for 
>taking action. In fact, I believe it is almost always the least 
>legitimate motive. And I can because I believe that web 
>designers, like 
>everyone else on this planet, should be held accountable for 
>their actions.
>
>> If you want to be able to view all of these supposed web 
>sites that don't
>> work, then you should be helping to promote web standards.
>
>Is there anyone on this list who is not promoting web standards?
>
>> Designers build
>> sites to reach the largest audience possible.  This is a 
>simple fact of
>> life.
>
>Utter nonsense. In fact, this is so obviously false that I'm shocked 
>that you could even think it.
>
>How can you in one paragraph note that web designers are 
>locking out 9% 
>of their users intentionally and then in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH claim 
>that designers build sites to reach the largest audience possible?
>
>What most designers do is try to reach the largest group FOR THE LEAST 
>EFFORT. If it will take them 50% more effort to reach 5% more users, 
>then they consider that a waste of effort. That's because they 
>must put 
>profit above human rights, or risk losing their jobs.
>
>And the sad truth is that most people just don't give a hoot about 
>accessibility. They may pay it lip service (and many won't even do 
>that), but they're not going to make any *personal sacrifices* for it.
>
>> I'm not saying this is necessarily the right way, but it is certainly
>> the reality of things.
>
>Ah, but you *are* saying that it is the right way, because we indicate 
>the "right way" not by what we say, but by what we do. Actions speak 
>much louder than words.
>
>So when we accept the status quo and make excuses for why 
>things are the 
>way they are, we are saying with our actions that this is the 
>right way. 
>Why would one defend or accept the wrong way?
>
>Throughout history, more evil has been wrought under the banner of 
>"reality" than in any other way. It's a crock. Reality is what we make 
>it. We cannot escape responsibility for our creations by 
>pretending that 
>they just "happened" and that we are making the best of it. We created 
>this world and we can uncreate it, too.
>
>>>The Window-Eyes Professional software for Windows 95, 98, 
>Me, 2000, XP
>>>Home Edition, and XP Professional retails for $795.00,
>>>
>> I suppose you expect they'd give it away for free, or sell 
>it for $30?
>> Sometimes the expectations that people have are just silly.
>
>I'd expect these capabilities to be built in to every piece of 
>software, 
>since they are required for humans to use the software. That 
>would make 
>products like Window-Eyes superfluous.
>
>Sincerely,
>Charles F. Munat
>Seattle, Washington
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 14:19:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT