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

Re: Media - Suit Over Airlines' Web Sites Tests Bounds of ADA

From: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:06:41 +0100
Message-ID: <00c701c27095$d3bcd0c0$020044c2@laptop>
To: "Nissen, Dan E" <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

From: "Nissen, Dan E" <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>
> Most web sites are not aimed at service, but at advertising.  I think that
> is a problem, but it is the fact.  And, advertising is all image.

Image in this context isn't visual, otherwise how does radio advertising

>  Who, in today's world, wants an image of plain text?

So how does this opinion explain advertising on radio? There are many
non-visual ways of creating an image. A company with an accessible website
which allows me the same service on my preferred choice of user-agent on my
PC and on my other choice of user-agent on my pocket pc is going to get more
of my business because of its accessibility on my pocket PC.

> I respectfully disagree that the NYT web site has to be accessible.

Okay, what are your arguments for actively preventing access to
information - the information that the user qualifies to receive? What kind
of image does a company portray by saying it provides information, but
prevents legitimate people from getting that information? Surely that is

>  Section 508 relates only to the government.

How did you figure that?

> I do not think it is useful to assume that because the third world and
> can only get 486 computers the rest of the world needs to be constrained
> what that kind of computer can do.

So you consider schools, libraries, family members third world?

It is also ironic when computer specs are bandied about, they all completely
miss the obvious fact that it isn't the processing power of a PC thats the
bottleneck, but the speed of the internet connection.

> "If I provide, and the disabled spend their disposable income, my share
> price goes up less than $0.01".

Ironic to note than inaccessible websites cannot be used reliably on pocket
pcs. People who buy pocket pcs do have quite significant disposable incomes.
Accessibility _gives_ you an avenue to that market.

>  If this is an advertising medium, then
> advertisers want 18-49 year olds with incomes over $30,000.

And users of pocket pcs don't fall into this category?

> And, no one should be forced to spend money so someone else can live for
> free.

Who is living for free?
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 15:46:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:20 UTC