RE: Media - Suit Over Airlines' Web Sites Tests Bounds of ADA

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Phill Jenkins wrote:

> >Accessibility means available to all users, regardless
> >of the technology they may be using.
> 
> I respectively disagree.

and I disagree with you
> 
> >Bloated Flash intensive sites with
> >locked down fonts, grey text on black backgrounds, "mission critical"
> >functions which rely on JavaScript, and all the other hooey we see every
> day
> >is inaccessible to large portions of the population, not just those with
> >visible handicaps. It's seniors, children, users who's first language is
> not
> >the mother tongue of the web site, it's people in rural areas with poor
> >dial-up connections or under funded schools and libraries with pre-1995
> >technolgies (Wow! a 486 with a 14" monitor and a 14.4 baud modem!)  These
> >people deserve to have access to the internet and it's content as well.

YES you should, THIS IS A WORLD WIDE WEB, I say again !!! IT IS A WORLD
WIDE WEB, not an affluent american/european/japanese web.....the folks of
the third world and the second world need and deserve access to the
information on the web as much as any one else.

> I agree that everyone deserves to have access to the internet and it's
> content.  But where the burden lies is the devil in the details.

always the details
> 
> Is it the author's responsibility to code the site so it can work with an
> old 486 machine and 14.4 modem or is it the communities responsibility to

YES, and a 8086 machine running dos 3.1 on a 2,400 baud modem on an
aocustic coupler.  heck a TR-80 should be able to link up 

> fund the community centers and schools with better technology?  Doesn't

funny, the taxpayers refuse to buy books for the libraries in the inner
city, and you think they will continually be able to pay the outragous end
license fees that never end??  and that is in the USA.  what about
Nicaragua, or Somalia, or the real Java???

> everyone really deserve access to the functionality rich sites that rely on
> JavaScript? I would much rather ask the author to make the JavaScript
> directly accessible than to ask him/her to code another noscript site.   I

why you the author and too lazy to make it accessible

> would much rather ask the handfuls of Assistive Technology vendors to
> better support JavaScript than to ask all the millions of web developers to
> code additional redundant noscript web sites.

sure make the disabled folks spend thier money on useless eyecandy they
don't need or want to make life easier on the web developers who are
making good money building these barriers into their sites

> Is it the author's responsibility to code the site without Flash or is it
> his/her responsibility to code the Flash following the Macromedia
> guidelines so it can be directly accessible?  Isn't NOT allowing Flash a

YES!

> lot like saying it's the author's responsibility NOT to use the W3C HTML
> coding tags but only provide a text document of the information because the
> individual may not have access to a computer to access the internet?

no you don't seem to get it, you are changing the format and method.  I'll
say it again the law requires "EQUIVALENT FACILITATION"  if it is on the
web then it has to be accessible, don't put it on the web, you don't have
to comply with 508

> Technology available to the users *is* part of the consideration of the
> technical accessibility standards.  The angle of the ramp to a physical
> building was determined when considering the wheel chair technology
> available.  But, the regulations did NOT place the burden on the building
> owner to provide the wheel chair, only to make the ramp accessible to the
> wheel chair by following width and angle requirements in the technical
> standard.  Can every wheel chair make it up the ramp?  Well, that depends
> on the wheel chair power and battery if it's motorized and/or the users
> strength if it is manual.
> 
> Is every web site accessible to the user's assistive technology (AT)?
> Well, that depends on the AT's capability, the platform, etc. in other
> words, the technology.  Because everyone deserve access to the content does
> not give us the right to demand that every web site author re-code their
> site to account for older 486 machines.  Also, because everyone deserves
> access to the content does not give us the right to say that only W3C
> formats are allowed on the internet, but it does give us the right to ask
> for formats to have the ability to be compatible with supporting assistive
> technologies - that's what this list is about - those interested in
> technical web accessibility standards.

who's buying all this new constantly upgrading hardware and
software.  many people are lucky they can afford a used machine and keep
it plugging along for 10 or 12 years,  IF you code to W3C formats I could
pull out my (still working) Victor 9000, 8086 machine with Dos 2.1 and the
old 300 baud modem and read and use the site....(when I first logged on to
the net it was with a 16.5 baud modem, see I do believe some things are
obsolete)
 > 
> Now, back to the issue of the airline sites.  What are the technical
> barriers that prevent today's AT's from working? Is there anything missing

eye candy, flash, javascript, and all the other stuff that doesn't comply
with 508, WCAG, UAAG. etc etc etc.  I know where of this gentleman speaks
who is suing, I had to pay over $100 more per ticket for flights on the
same airline because I don't/can't use the fancy software.


The internet should be a world wide unifying tool not another mechanism to
divide the world into the haves and have nots, nor is it the economic
force to sell software and hardware.

Bob
professional iconoclast


   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks

Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 20:06:49 UTC