- 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