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: Nissen, Dan E <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:19:25 -0500
Message-ID: <FC86023944FB1F48943B3B1CED11E0FC821B89@USRV-EXCH2.na.uis.unisys.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

I don't know how useful this reply will be as you are making an equity
argument (there are the poor or disabled and they deserve to be included)
and I am making either a business (I need to see a positive return on
investment) or a legal argument(Section 508 is a particular clause added to
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).  As a human being, I accept your argument,
but I have these needs to force a budget to appear to actually retrofit the
implementations to comply with accessibility, and they need to be driven by
business and/or legal arguments.

1. Radio as an advertising medium to model web sites on - Radio is a useful
medium, but most people react better to graphics than radio ads.
Advertisers pay much more per person for TV ads than radio, because they are
more effective at influencing purchases.  Return on investment will be
better if the web site has graphics.

2. I see no reason to assume that anyone is actively preventing access, just
not actively allowing access.  Do you have any examples of active
preventing?  It seems that your argument could be used to require companies
to supply computers to anyone who wants access to their web site.  A good
goal, but unrealistic in this day.

3. Section 508 is a particular section of the US Code that requires
government agencies to purchase accessible E&IT if available for their
application.  Others can follow but are not legally obligated to do so.

4. I assume that advertisers will make the decision as to whether to support
pocket PCs.  I am not such an advertiser.  I agree with another comment on
this list that said that most sites that support small screens will provide
two interfaces, because the 17-inch monitor user will find the 3-inch
monitor display to be too small.

5. Perhaps I overstated on the living free.  I was referring to people who
insist that all other people make it possible for them to use Linux and
other free software because, as they have told me, it is free.

Most of this is a side discussion to what we should do to make accessible
web sites easier to build and know that they are accessible to as many
people as possible.  Has anybody looked at
http://dynamic.macromedia.com/bin/MM/exchange/extension_detail.jsp?extOid=26
6562 and tried to build accessible web sites with DreamWeaver?

Dan



-----Original Message-----
From: Isofarro [mailto:w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:07 PM
To: Nissen, Dan E; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Media - Suit Over Airlines' Web Sites Tests Bounds of ADA


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
work?

>  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
misleading?

>  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
poor
> can only get 486 computers the rest of the world needs to be constrained
to
> 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 16:19:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:07 GMT