RE: Judgment in the SouthWest case.

Perhaps better wording would be:

Require businesses who are in the U.S. to have an accessible website or
an alternative means, which provide the same access as the non-disabled.


For example, many airlines, and other stores, have special deals for
those who shop on the web.  If their site is inaccessible, is it right
that I, who am  blind, who cannot access their website, be forced to pay
full price?  

--Hy

-----Original Message-----
From: Jaz-Michael King [mailto:JMKing@ipro.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 11:13 AM
To: peacockk@ctcgsc.org; hy@miplet.com
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Judgment in the SouthWest case.


>>> Guess we need to start writing congress to amend ADA to include any 
>>>Website which is owned by a business in the United States must be 
>>>accessible to those with disabilities.

so we can all go work abroad when the companies move? how hard will it
be for any company to open a separate entity abroad to "own" the web
site. hard for the all the little guys that this will put out of
business, peanuts for the like of southwest airlines.

accessible web sites are good business and good *for* business, but
making it mandatory under US federal law is a ridiculous idea. if the US
govt wants to make it mandatory under section 508 for govt.
accessibility that's their concern, I for one would stand hard against
making this a regulatory requirement for business. acceptable and
accessible alternatives are all that's needed, and businesses that
choose not to do so are losing money by not serving that section of the
population, let that be their punishment.

what comes next? requiring human translated web content so Welsh
speakers can buy tickets in their native language? it's not about making
things easy, it's about making them accessible.

as an example, making text accessible to braille readers is great, I
hope all my pages will one day conform to this standard. in the
meantime, making sure that someone is available on the phone ready to
read the page to them will suffice, we don't need more laws to deal with
this.

j

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 14:42:33 UTC