- From: Christopher R. Maden <crism@exemplary.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:44:55 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
[Joyce Taylor] >I have one client whose business is computers (hardware and programming.) I >was explaining some points to one of this businesses' employees about >accessibility and about certain government agencies and certain higher >educational pages needing to be accessible. But he said this was government >control and should not be allowed and doesn't agree with it and felt that >not many people who were disabled actually use the internet and oneshould be >made to conform pages for people with disabilites. This is not surprising to me. It's along the same lines as my earlier comments; some people instinctively resist control; if the government said you had to have a pointy roof, they'd build a flat one. Witness the FUD response to the misguided news articles about Section 504. Kynn's list of selfish reasons to adopt accessibility is far more compelling, both to people like your client and to those who like legislating The Right Thing. Accessibility is good because more people get your message, and if you're not trying to communicate, why do you have a Web site? Accessibility *is* a little more difficult than not - because you have to think a little bit about what you're doing. But the cost is small and the payoff is high. (FWIW, Joyce, if you get another client like that, tell them I'm a hard-core Libertarian and keep all of my Web pages accessible. A Libertarian friend of mine wrote a very nice article about self-interest-motivated community development efforts, including participation in standards and accessibility initiatives. I can dig up the URL if anyone wants it.) -Chris -- Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect Exemplary Technologies One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405 San Francisco, CA 94111
Received on Monday, 18 October 1999 18:46:24 UTC