- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:03:41 +0100
- To: Gavin Pearce <gavinp@tbs.uk.com>
- CC: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Gavin Pearce wrote:
> I agree with accessibility, but then I also agree with good business
> practise.
>
> And it is good business practise to appeal to the majority rather than the
> minority.
>
> Yes we shouldn't discriminate, but then we shouldn't discriminate against
> able bodied users just for the minority.
I've been away for a while, trying to catch up on all the discussions
here...so forgive me if I misunderstand the context, but: how are a few
optional attributes in a language discriminating against able bodied users?
> For example - my sailing club recently shut down because it couldn't afford
> to comply with the disability requirements, we couldn't provide disabled
> access to the sailing dinghy, and couldn't afford to. Now whilst disabled
> people do do sailing, we have no disabled members, and none have ever
> visited or made an effort to find out about the club. Yet the club was
> shut-down because of it.
Not wanting to sidetrack this discussion (feel free to answer off-list),
but: the law asks for "reasonable adjustments". In this case, which
adjustment was not made (because it was impractical or too expensive)?
Was it just a speculative closure ("we may be sued, so we'd rather close
the club") or was there an actual complaint lodged against the club? As
it stands, your account seems a tad misleading.
> I suppose my point is everyone knows what they should do now days, and it
> can in most cases be done without affecting the majority of users, but in
> the rare cases where accessibility would make an object less desirable for
> able-bodied people, we should stick with the majority of internet users -
> rather than turning it into something accessible just so one or two people
> can view it perhaps, sometimes, maybe not, never.
In contrast with physical goods and services, it's actually fairly
straightforward to accommodate a very large number of users, regardless
of disability, without affecting "the majority" one bit. Which things,
specifically, are you ranting about here? The provision of a simple link
to a text transcript or similar?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 21:03:49 UTC