- From: Paul Davis <paul@ten-20.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:08:12 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Speaking as a dyed in the wool marketing man with a passing experience on the internet, this is one of the major problems a website designer has. There are lies, dammed lies, then statistics.....etc. etc. However, I do believe the one about the average modem being a 28k, I was on a client's computer the other day with one....ughhhh. The fact is, the internet is a marketing medium and is a matter of targeting your market correctly (Gap made that decision deliberately to exclude disabled people as non customers!!??!!) In a conversation last year with a then senior Kellogg man in the UK, I pointed out to him that the bells and whistles on tonythetiger.com (never mind the fact that it was an image only site) would crash many kids computers. It did it to mine the first time I accessed. I had to close down a couple of programs I had open on the task bar. This came as a shock to him as when he had viewed the site it worked perfectly, but then he was in their main UK office in Manchester and he was using the latest technology. And I suspect it was also on the designers' hard drive!! This is the problem. Businesses all too often have fast modern computers that can handle flashy gizmos and complicated Java script therefore lack the ability to envisage what is actually out there. Try surfing on a 486 and see what happens!! I believe it was William Loughborough who last week mentioned the other approach. Which I whole heartedly agree with, in the light of the Olympic fiasco and the fact that the Human Rights Act along with the DDA came into play. As a result of this action can a web designer afford to be responsible for building an inaccessible site? In the UK the Human Rights Act came into full force on the 2nd of October. Ten-20 plans to use it starting with inaccessible web sites that are supposed to be for disabled people and are in fact commercial operations out to make a fast (non ethical) buck. The Question of who is responsible for the site in the event of a legal action is an interesting one. I think that the designer is accountable as he/she as the 'expert' should know better. Ignorance is not a defence in law. The one thing for certain is, if writs start flying the company who commissioned the site will not claim "it's a fair cop guv". Chances are they will duck for cover and do their very best to pass them on. Therefore when costing out a website the designer should now be thinking about quoting a higher figure for a non accessible site as potentially they could be taking on a risk. I also suspect this approach may work better with the larger corporate customer as opposed to the smaller business man, where price is everything. These days everyone and their cousin is a web designer prepared to do an iffy job for £50. It needs responsible web designers to brush up their own act in the marketing department and present their argument professionally. Any responsible businessman would then see the logic, and if they don't, you do not get to build a website that could come back and bite you in the butt at a later date. Sorry to rabbit on a bit. smiles Paul Davis www.ten-20.com The UK portal site for disabled people and associated professionals.
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2000 10:08:24 UTC