|
| |
|
|
Taz
Posts: 3048
Joined: 7/6/2004
From: U.K (Formerly outer space.)
Status: offline
 |
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 13:18:05
quote:
ORIGINAL: Donkey
Why the blanket rules though.
This is the nanny state writ large AFAIC.
This was what I meant by all sites would end up being text only, kind of like collective punishment, if person A can't do or use something, then Person B, C and D must have it a certain way so everyone is equal.
It's always the way, people upstairs in charge can't work it out so a fair way is viable or they fear being caught in that un PC trap and their arses are on the line instead of ours, so they make it so no one can complain cos everything is the same no matter which person (A, B, C or D) you are.
_____________________________
Smileys
End Of Line...
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 13:20:37
my hearing has deteriorated to the point where i cannot hear on a telephone without an amplifier attachment - should I be accomadated by requiring such attachment on all public telephones?
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 13:25:03
but is it available on any corner phone that i walk up to?
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Taz
Posts: 3048
Joined: 7/6/2004
From: U.K (Formerly outer space.)
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 13:25:58
quote:
ORIGINAL: dpf
but is it available on any corner phone that i walk up to?
Most public phones have it, I believe.
_____________________________
Smileys
End Of Line...
| |
|
|
|
Taz
Posts: 3048
Joined: 7/6/2004
From: U.K (Formerly outer space.)
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 13:37:46
quote:
ORIGINAL: jaybee
quote:
It's always the way, people upstairs in charge can't work it out
Isn't it more a case of the webmaster can't work it out so disabled people can get lost?
It is not difficult to get a site to comply with level 1 which is what the law requires. If you can't get it to that level then you shouldn't be in business.
Not at all to the first, as I said, I am all for accesible websites. As I mentioned above.
As for the second, that all depends what the requirements are for the site that the company wants surely?
(Let's remember here, half these companies do not even know they are supposed to have a site that is workable for impaired/disabled users, if it wasn't for the good Webmasters/Designers telling them.)
Or are you that uber confident and skilled you can do utterly everything anyone could ever want and you can get it working on every level at every requirement for every law.... So everyone with any condition, disability and tool to surf with can play on a level field.
_____________________________
Smileys
End Of Line...
| |
|
|
|
womble
Posts: 6285
Joined: 3/14/2005
From: Living on the edge
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 15:08:01
My pet subject!!!
First of all I thought the site Bobby D put a link for was great, though being a site about accessibility I was disappointed that it didn't have a facility to increase the text size as I've found some that do. Not everyone with visual problems uses screen readers or their own stye sheets. BTW, the RNIB Good Design) site is a good source of info on accessibility, and also has a section on web accessibility. Also, a point to note about hearing not mentioned on the WebAIM site; many profoundly Deaf people who are sign language users whose first language is sign language have poor language skills. It's said that profoundly deaf children leave school with an average reading age of eight, not because they are unintelligent, but because deafness is still a barrier to learning. Any information that's provided in a format that doesn't use plain English, not just websites, will be inaccessible to many profoundly Deaf people.
quote:
His fault? Or the airline's fault?
Now we're into the social versus medical model of disability, and I would say most definitely the airline's. An except from a leaflet I produced for the organisation I do voluntary work for that explains how the two models can be applied to deafness:
quote:
The medical model of disability
It’s natural to think of disability in terms of the individual and how it affects them. This is the traditional way of looking at disability, the medical model of disability. The individual has a medical problem. The individual needs medical help. The individual needs specific help so that they can do things. The medical model looks at causes, symptoms and cures, and often doesn’t take account of the whole person. Disabled people's inability to join in society is seen as a direct result of having an impairment and not as the result of features of our society which can be changed.
For Ddeaf people, hearing loss is classified by the level of hearing loss according to set medical criteria of units of dBHL (decibels and hearing loss). This is the medical model of disability at work.. Emphasis is on classifying that person’s hearing loss and ‘fixing’ it, for example by giving them hearing aids.
In some ways though deafness is unique in that giving someone a hearing aid doesn’t instantly make them 'hearing' in the same way that giving someone who is short-sighted glasses gives them near normal vision. As any hearing aid user will tell you, hearing aids do not give you perfect hearing and only boost, or amplify, your remaining hearing. And what about profoundly deaf people for whom hearing aids don’t help?
The medical model focuses on the individual and what is medically wrong with them, and what can be done to correct the ‘impairment’. The medical model of disability though can make people feel inferior. Deafness is seen as a limitation, using negative phrases such as ‘hearing impaired’. But what does disabled mean? That a Ddeaf person can’t do everything that other people do? The only thing that Ddeaf people can’t do is hear.
The social model of disability
So is there another way of looking at disability? The social model of disability promotes a more positive image. It doesn’t focus on the individual, but on society. The only thing a Ddeaf person can’t do is hear. It’s society’s lack of provision for Ddeaf people that makes them disabled and prevents them from participating equally with hearing people. With the social model, a Ddeaf person is disabled because they can’t for example access the arts. The solution is simple – for example making all theatres accessible by the use of induction loops, captioning and signing.
The fact that not all public places like banks, shops, hospitals…in fact all the places which we all have to visit in our everyday life, have induction loops or that few service providers have staff who can sign makes doing everyday things such a struggle – not the fact that someone is Ddeaf. All Ddeaf people can make their own list of barriers they encounter.
quote:
all sites would end up being text only, kind of like collective punishment, if person A can't do or use something, then Person B, C and D must have it a certain way so everyone is equal.
And why shouldn't everyone be equal? Like jaybee says, no-one's saying accessible sites can't have graphics, that's what the alt and title or longdesc tags are for.
quote:
but is it available on any corner phone that i walk up to?
In the UK all public phones must have an inductive coupler. Obviously though that only helps if you have hearing aids with a 'T' switch.
quote:
(Let's remember here, half these companies do not even know they are supposed to have a site that is workable for impaired/disabled users, if it wasn't for the good Webmasters/Designers telling them.)
Ignorance is not an acceptable defence. The DDA has only been on the statute for 10 years, since 1995. If after 10 years they've not realised that their web presence is used to access their service,product, whatever, "access to goods, facilities and services" as the DDA puts it, then IMO they've only themselves to blame if they get sued.
I think generally the point is that you don't have to spend an awful lot of money to make a site accessible. The point is that accessibility isn't an optional add-on. It's something that has to be considered before you even go anywhere near a computer and start designing a site. Webmasters, designers, and their clients (probably most of all their clients) need to realise that there are things you need to consider before you do anything else, consider the colour scheme you're going to use, how you're going to lay out the information, what sort of language you're going to use, etc.
I've seen it from both sides of the fence. Some years ago when I was working as a PA for a management consultant I was organising a conference, and I knew that one of the attendees was deaf. I'd had dealings with this woman before and she'd complained that I hadn't booked a separate room for group discussions as it would make it easier for her if her group was somewhere quieter, rather than in the main hall. I was trying to economise because we were going over budget, and having to book the extra room to keep her happy sent me over budget. At the time I couldn't see what the big deal was. Over the past 4 years, having lost some sight and hearing due to a neurologiscal condition, I now realise what the big deal was. I've been in similar situations myself and I know it's not much fun when you can't hear what's going on around you.
Just because I now have disabilities doesn't mean I don't still want to do the things I could do before. Yes, there are certain things that aren't possible, but in many cases the things I can't do are because people haven't considered the needs of disabled people.
We do live in an increasingly litiguous society, but, for the vast majority of disabled people who end up resorting to court action, it's because all other methods have failed, and it's the only way to try and stop the discrimination that disabled people face on a daily basis, through no fault of their own.
| |
|
|
|
BobbyDouglas
Posts: 5577
Joined: 5/15/2003
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 15:45:19
Great discussion!
Rachel, I have some questions from the dark side.
- How come MSN (and every other large corp) does not abide to these accessibility standards?
- Why should I spend time/money making my site accessible, if the turn around does not make it worth it?
- Why build websites for all legacy browsers, Netscape 3.2, MSIE 4.0, etc. ?
- Why do only some of the walk/stop signals at crosswalks have sounds? And others do not? Maybe it is because it isn't worth the time?
From the business world, the rate of return plays one of the biggest roles in determining what is done. If it is not worth it to make the investment, why waste the money?
I could spend $100 extra on my site, and bring in one extra user every month. Or I could spend $200 on my site, and bring in one user who has a disibility.
I kind of have the opposite view as Rachel, but I'm more than happy to have a good discussion on it.
I think a lot of people are not educated enough on the issue. One thing for sure is that past experience plays a very important role when taking a side with the accessibility issue.
_____________________________
Arizona Web Design - Mr Bobs Web Design in Arizona
The Arizona Web Hosting Challenge
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 15:49:35
quote:
all sites would end up being text only would it be a feasible compromise to create a text only version of a site to truly focus on accessiblity? would that do the trick?
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
BobbyDouglas
Posts: 5577
Joined: 5/15/2003
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 16:07:34
That wouldn't work. I honestly do not see a workable solution to this issue.
Imagine trying to put a text only version of large websites, that just is not reasonable. Some people have browsers that will display only the text.. so that is something extra they could always do.
_____________________________
Arizona Web Design - Mr Bobs Web Design in Arizona
The Arizona Web Hosting Challenge
| |
|
|
|
Giomanach
Posts: 6191
Joined: 11/19/2003
From: England
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 19:55:49
You're asking: How much money will this let me make?
You should be asking: How much will I be paying when taken to court?
_____________________________
| |
|
|
|
BobbyDouglas
Posts: 5577
Joined: 5/15/2003
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 20:28:41
You should be asking: How much will I be paying when taken to court?
- I haven't seen a single accessibility lawsuit that I didn't think was frivilous. I haven't seen many to begin with, but not one that I thought was reasonable.
_____________________________
Arizona Web Design - Mr Bobs Web Design in Arizona
The Arizona Web Hosting Challenge
| |
|
|
|
Non-Profit
Posts: 388
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Accessibility? Do we need to spend the extra money? - 4/8/2005 23:13:11
quote:
At the other extreme how far do you go in catering for disability, there must inevitably be a point beyond which access is infeasible.
I think that's true and I think that that's what the laws are trying to do; to delineate between necessary and unnecessary access issues. I don't think it's unnecessary to require you to add proper alt-text to your site but it is unnecessary to require you to go to every deafblind persons home and fingerspell into their hand your entire site.
As a counselor at a Center for Independent Living and a person with a physical disability myself (Friedreich's Ataxia), I see the negative impact that poorly designed websites have on people with disabilities every day. As has been said about accessibility, it's not that difficult to implement. We should do it because it's the right thing to do not simply to avoid lawsuits, however I'd be naive if I said that is probably not what's on most CEO's minds when they consider disability and web accessibility.
Tony
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
You mean if someone else bought it and they fell off they might sue?