Re: WCAG 2.0 and scripting

Isofarro wrote:
> 
> If a business wants to lock down what an employee can access with their 
> corporate hardware and software, it is well within its rights. If a 
> business wants to prevent an employee from using the required tools to 
> do his job, that's a problem for the business to solve, not the web 
> developer.

That is a very dangerous position to take on an accessibility mailing 
list as it is very similar to the argument that says that authors have 
no responsibility for accessibility; the user should pay whatever it 
takes, including, say, paying for a sighted web page interpreter.

It also depends on whether you are in a buyers or a sellers market.  If 
you are in a sellers' market, you can afford to force the customers to 
work your way, but if you are in a buyers' one, you had better adapt to 
the customer's way of working.

To a large extent, users are forced to support certain technologies 
because they cannot access information without them, not because they 
actually benefit their use of the information or are fundamentally 
necessary to access the information.


In my view, businesses that restrict the capabilities are browsers are 
acting responsibly

> 
> There are employee related legislation and tribunals that are more 
> capable and competent in dealing with human resourcing issues of 
> businesses.
> 
> We web developers should not be put in a position to cater for bad 
> business decisions. It is neither our fault or our responsibility.
> 
> 
> Mike..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 20:43:04 UTC