W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Proposal of @ua

From: by way of <brkemper@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:28:53 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20071124172853.01233a10@mail.iswest.com>
To: www-style@w3.org


On Nov 24, 2007, at 7:50 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

>
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:51:51 -0800Brad Kemper
<brkemper@comcast.net>
> wrote in part [referring to browsers]:
>> I have to prioritize and concentrate my efforts where I see the
>> most need, and one of the big 3 or 4 that account for 99% of the
>> traffic comes out with  a new version then I know that more and
>> more of the thousands of page views on my company's sites will be
>> using the newer version.
>
> This may easily exclude specialized browsers that are adaptive for
> the handicapped.  Target Corp is being sued in U.S. District Court
> for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because
its
> on-line shopping Web site cannot be used by audio browsers that
are
> used by the blind.

They should be suing the makers of the audio browsers that can't  
handle HTML that's been standard for years. The only reason a DIV  
with scrolling overflow is considered accessible but a similarly  
sized frame or iframe isn't is because the software for reading Web

pages to the blind sucks so terribly. But I guess Target has deeper

pockets.

> The first step in that lawsuit is an appeal by Target to determine
> whether the ADA applies to commercial activities on the Web.  If
the
> ADA does apply, then any business that creates a Web site that
> excludes (or merely ignores) specialized browsers is at risk.
This
> risk will exist even if the specifics of the lawsuit means that
> Target eventually wins.

Astounding. Ironically, in order not to ignore them, we will
probably  
have to detect their specialized browsers on the server and give
them  
special pages.


> The message here is that browser-specific and platform-specific
> commercial Web sites -- concentrating on only the 3 or 4 most
widely
> used browsers -- may indeed be illegal.

If so, then a lot of businesses will be leaving the Web or severely

curtailing what they do on the Web. Resources are not unlimited.


>
>
> David E. Ross
> <http://www.rossde.com/>.
>
> Don't ask "Why is there road rage?"  Instead, ask
> "Why NOT Road Rage?" or "Why Is There No Such
> Thing as Fast Enough?"
> <http://www.rossde.com/roadrage.html>
>
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 01:29:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:56 GMT