- From: Andy Heath <a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:19:25 +0000
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- CC: John Colby <John.Colby@uce.ac.uk>, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> might seem sensible. But my experience was different - that the total cost > of work required was not actually high. It cost less than the management > meetings required to approve it. And the cost in following through a > complaint is mostly time. Making company lawyers use their time on this It seems to me that peace is always cheaper than war! Unless of course you are a general or an arms maker. The difficulty with economic/business arguments is it depends where you stand and where you draw a line around the context .. what is the argument for a government ? What is the argument for a community, what is the argument for the manager of a department ? So what is this argument for war (metaphorical equivalent of avoiding doing accessibility to save money) ? It doesn't make sense to me. If the objective of life is to get one over on the other guy, (avoid spending money on him, shoot him, sell him tobacco, risk his health as an employer ... whatever) then life seems pretty poor. What happened to ethical reasons for doing stuff ? What happened to being decent to people and not trying to screw them ? In war we are all the poorer not just the ones who get killed. Why does it have to be profitable ? - we all live on the same planet here. Having a world where everyone can join in is something worth having. Arguing about cost is deception ;-). andy -- andy _______________________________________________ Andy Heath a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk
Received on Friday, 24 December 2004 01:19:59 UTC