W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Web video accessibility

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:41:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: Karl Groves <karl@karlgroves.com>
cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>, EmbedPlus <ext@embedplus.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1108171827230.5442@cygnus.smart.net>
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Karl Groves wrote:

>> I will not forget their faces and the desire to connect. and for many of them lynx is the advanced browser.
>>
>
> I'd still like to see data which substantiates your claim that this is "common".

the old straw horse, been in this fight far too long to fall for that one.

> As long as we (accessibility people) continue to treat accessibility
> as an all-or-nothing topic, people who are not accessibility people
> will continue to regard us as unreasonable hysterics.  With all due
> respect, your messages on this topic do more to substantiate this
> all-too-common feeling.  Statements like "the web is not accessible
> until everyone can use it.  and I define "everyone" as everyone." are
> extremely unreasonable and fail to take into consideration the fact
> that other things matter, too - sometimes just as much as
> accessibility and frankly some things even more than accessibility.

I guess it depends on weather your on the inside looking out or on the 
outside looking in

>
> I remember talking to someone right after the Target lawsuit was filed
> and they said "Good! I hope NFB bankrupts them!".  I've heard other
> statements aimed at JetBlue and major US Government agencies like SSA,

I don't want to bankrupt anyone and don't think it should, But I have seen 
groups and agencies spend far more fighting access than it would have ever 
cost to do everything that was requested.

> SBA and IRS.  Everytime I hear things like that, it makes me
> embarrassed for the person who said it.  What people like this fail to
> understand is that these companies and organizations still have a job
> to do.  In the case of the government, for instance, they still need
> to fulfill the mandate set forth upon them from the taxpayer.  They
> still need to do the job that their country's citizens have asked (and
> funded) them to do.  Educational institutions still need to educate
> students.  Private companies still need to conduct commerce.

while I don't always agree, I do understand where these folks are coming 
from.  the problem is that it is ALWAYS the same few groups of people that 
are excluded.  and if you are one of those being excluded it is easy to 
say to heck with them.

> The person who said they wanted Target to go bankrupt was so
> myopically focused on accessibility, they ignored the fact that Target
> employes 355,000 people across 1750 locations in the United States and
> are a major employer in Minneapolis.  "Bankrupting" Target because of
> an inaccessible website would have done far more harm than good, but
> people with such extremist views don't seem to understand or care
> about this.

oh they understand and care, but when it is everyone but you, why should 
one care....???  and the concept is if "store X" is bankrupted maybe 
stores "y" "Z' etc will wake up and do something.
   if Rosa Parks hadn't refused to give up her seat would there ever be 
full access on buses.  or anywhere else.  ADAPT sat in front of the buses 
demanding full access, the comments heard was "will cost too much" and why 
not ride paratransit"  well the buses are accessible and many people ride 
them, far more than anyone predicted.  the straw man was always "no one 
will ride"

> Wanting every website on earth to be accessible to everyone is a great
> idea. I'd love it. Its funny, because it would put me out of a job,
> but I think it would be a great thing.  Maybe I'd go work in the music
> business again or something.    *Expecting* the web to be accessible
> to everyone is unrealistic.  Its like expecting politicians to be

I guess that is the difference, I do believe it is not only realistic but 
cost effective and possible.

> Perfection is the enemy of the good.

don't need perfection, how about usable.

>  We need to place reasonable
> expectations on organizations and their developers. We need to guide
> them toward making the highest impact changes first and deferring that
> which takes more time.

NO!   because they will do the easy things and the real access issues will 
always be "Tommorrow"   21 years ago I sat and watched the president sign 
the ADA.  the rehab act was even earlier.  why are so few things done.


> We need to educate them and give them guidance
> on practical and realistic approaches that work for *most* people in
> *most* circumstances and understand that there may be some cases where
> not *everyone* can be accommodated in every situation.

everyone can be accomodated in every situation, often with different 
solutions but as soon as you set your goal lower you will never achieve 
that which is possible.

the SeaBees have the right  attitude, "the difficult we do immediately, 
the impossible takes a little longer, come back in 15 minutes!"

Bob
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 22:42:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 17 August 2011 22:42:14 GMT