- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 17:24:33 -0500
- To: <rpreston@cmp.com>
- Cc: <frezza@alum.mit.edu>, "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Dear Editor, I take great issue with Bill Frezza's Internet Week Online article dated February 28, "The ADA Stalks The Internet: Is Your Web Page Illegal?" Reference URL: http://www.internetwk.com/columns00/frezz022800.htm The Americans with Disabilities Act is civil rights legislation. To frame it as anything less is offensive and ignorant. Lawyers make money protecting all kinds of people from all kinds of discrimination. Is this a serious argument to do away with such laws? We don't expect corporate and private largess to address most of our basic rights. The right of access to public information is no less fundamental. The ADA has had a profoundly positive effect on the day-to-day lives of MILLIONS. Many of the primary benefactors have NOT been persons with disabilities. A few examples: Delivery men and bicyclist use curb cuts and ramps more than persons with wheelchairs. Young children and adults learning to read benefit more from closed captioning than do the deaf. Doesn't everyone appreciate how elevator doors announce themselves before they open? That little feature was originally conceived so that people using crutches wouldn't hold up traffic! Like most accommodations, all of the above cost very little when they are considered at the beginning of a project. They seem like obvious "common sense" now, but would not have happened without legislation! They are all also examples of accommodations necessitated BECAUSE OF MAN-MADE BARRIERS created in our environment! The same is true for why web content, at least that which is paid for by tax dollars, should be expected to adhere to reasonable levels of accessibility! It use to be that a competent blind computer user, who had the latest equipment, pretty much had control and access to everything in his computer environment. Graphical applications, like desktop publishing and photograph manipulation, were the rare exceptions. They had the same issues everyone else faced with incompatible file formats and the like, but things were fairly under control. As the mainstream business world migrated to graphical operating systems, there were a few bumps in the road, but not too bad. Windows 95 remains remarkably screen-reader and keyboard friendly (economic issues and the threat of legal action played a large part there, but I will skip over that bit of history). During most of its existence, the Internet was extremely accessible too. It is only the last few years that things on the electronic frontiers have started to turn worse for the blind and others with disabilities. The omnipresence of the web marks the first time that a competent blind computer user, who has the latest equipment and training, can routinely encounter obstacles that they cannot overcome. The problem is NOT with them -- it is incompetent web authors who routine post content that is not standards compliant! The W3C HTML 4x specification mandates meaningful ALT text tags. It is ALT text which allows an image picture of words to be machine readable. That ALT text content makes a page accessible to someone who uses a screen reader. It is also that ALT text that is read by search engines, indexing spiders and web crawlers, as well as cell-phone and futuristic car dashboard browsers. You would think that it would be "common sense" to include such content. It seems ludicrous that such accommodations are in need of being legislated. American history is rich with examples of companies who resisted practices which were not only in the best interest of the country, but also in their own economic self-interest. The WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is not just a good idea, it SHOULD be the law. There are just too many examples of poorly coded sites. Does YOUR site pass a formal test of validation? Mr. Frezza wrote that Internet accessibility is "a noble goal and a fascinating technical challenge". He could not be more wrong on either point. Access to information is a basic right not a "noble goal"! The "technical challenges" aren't all that tough! See the WCAG "top ten" list (distributed on business cards) at URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips/#QuickTips The very specific document (with links to techniques) can be found at URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Sincerely, Bruce Bailey webmaster for the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Division of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) http://www.dors.state.md.us/ 410/554-9211
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 17:27:21 UTC