trading post

[Travis Newbury]

That is not the impression you gave at the very beginning of this thread
when it was still called Trading Post. You were quite happy that the site
concerned was as slow as hell in operation on dial up.

No I was not quite happy, I was indifferent. I am (as was stated later)
on broadband and I do not see those speed issues.

Force? Any? Form? Regulation? Who is forcing what?

The governments and lawyers are (trying to)forcing usability and
accessibility. Many here are caught up on the bandwagon. It is easy
to rally behind them when they use the "D" word (Discrimination)

I am wondering who you
are actually disputing? Who recognizes you as criticizing them in
particular? Name some names.

US, UK and Australian governments.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I agree, though e.g. Government sites are an exception, IMHO.

I agree with you there. Government sites should be as they perform a
different kind of function than a comercial site does.

 

[Travis Newbury]

... Now, don't be coy,
how about actually naming any obviously non-lunatic on this newsgroup you
reckon would suggest that such sites should not exist at all in that case...

I am interested in hearing who you think the lunatics are... (present
company excluded) (0_o)

 

[Els]

No I was not quite happy, I was indifferent. I am (as was stated later)
on broadband and I do not see those speed issues.


The governments and lawyers are (trying to)forcing usability and
accessibility. Many here are caught up on the bandwagon. It is easy
to rally behind them when they use the "D" word (Discrimination)


US, UK and Australian governments.

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding things:
I thought the rule that websites have to be accessible and not
discriminate against for instance the visually impaired, would be
enforced for the same institutions that are by law required to provide
access for wheelchairs, like public libraries, government
buildings/websites, not the local grocery or the Beatles fanclub
magazine?

I do agree with the obligation for all government websites to be
accessible, but I can't see how any government could make it a law
that barbie.com has to be accessible.

No one /needs/ access to barbie.com, but it's illegal (imo) to
obstruct the entrance to the post office so that a disabled person
can't send a letter, or to make a public library site inaccessible to
the blind, even though they have enough braille books in their
collection.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding things:
I thought the rule that websites have to be accessible and not
discriminate against for instance the visually impaired, would be
enforced for the same institutions that are by law required to provide
access for wheelchairs, like public libraries, government
buildings/websites, not the local grocery or the Beatles fanclub
magazine?

I do agree with the obligation for all government websites to be
accessible, but I can't see how any government could make it a law
that barbie.com has to be accessible.

No one /needs/ access to barbie.com, but it's illegal (imo) to
obstruct the entrance to the post office so that a disabled person
can't send a letter, or to make a public library site inaccessible to
the blind, even though they have enough braille books in their
collection.

Ooo, how I disagree Who are you/me/we to decide what it is that anyone
_needs_ What's a need? Needs develop. Though food, drink and safety are among
the first things you need, why would being able to express oneself creatively
not be a need but just some want all of a sudden? Who draws the line? Doesn't a
blind person have the right of the experience to 'see' a barbie by handling one?


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Els]

Ooo, how I disagree Who are you/me/we to decide what it is that anyone
_needs_ What's a need? Needs develop. Though food, drink and safety are among
the first things you need, why would being able to express oneself creatively
not be a need but just some want all of a sudden? Who draws the line? Doesn't a
blind person have the right of the experience to 'see' a barbie by handling one?

No one has the /right/ to see or 'see' a barbie. You are not saying
you want a law that obliges barbie.com to distribute barbies among the
poor infants in let's say Angola?
The decision about who is and who isn't to touch a real barbie doll,
is entirely the manufacturer's. Next you want a law to ensure the
company doesn't go belly up at some point? ;-)

 

[Travis Newbury]

Ooo, how I disagree Who are you/me/we to decide what it is that anyone
_needs_ What's a need? Needs develop. Though food, drink and safety are among
the first things you need, why would being able to express oneself creatively
not be a need but just some want all of a sudden? Who draws the line? Doesn't a
blind person have the right of the experience to 'see' a barbie by handling one?

No one has the "right" to see a barbie. A smart retailer may "want" to
let you see it in order to make money, but in no way do you have the
"right" to see it.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I do agree with the obligation for all government websites to be
accessible, but I can't see how any government could make it a law
that barbie.com has to be accessible.

But that is what they [governments] are trying to do. Accessibility
and usability of commercial web sites should be 100% voluntary. A
smart retailer wants their site to make the most money it can. In
order to do that, it must be as effective as possible. "Most" of the
time this means you should deal accordingly with your sites
accessibility and usability. But not always. Sometimes a website is
more effective using things that are inaccessible to some. The War of
the worlds website (for the new Spielberg movie) is one such example
where it is probably more effective as a flash website.

I do not disagree with accessibility and usability, I disagree with
laws that force it down our throats.

 

[Els]

I do agree with the obligation for all government websites to be
accessible, but I can't see how any government could make it a law
that barbie.com has to be accessible.

But that is what they [governments] are trying to do. Accessibility
and usability of commercial web sites should be 100% voluntary. A
smart retailer wants their site to make the most money it can. In
order to do that, it must be as effective as possible. "Most" of the
time this means you should deal accordingly with your sites
accessibility and usability. But not always. Sometimes a website is
more effective using things that are inaccessible to some. The War of
the worlds website (for the new Spielberg movie) is one such example
where it is probably more effective as a flash website.

I do not disagree with accessibility and usability, I disagree with
laws that force it down our throats.

This may be hard to believe, but I actually agree with you on that.
(for commercial websites that is)

 

[Travis Newbury]

This may be hard to believe, but I actually agree with you on that.
(for commercial websites that is)

Not hard to believe at all. It just seems to be common sense (well to
me at least)

 

[Els]

Not hard to believe at all. It just seems to be common sense (well to
me at least)

Your common sense isn't always the same as my common sense though ;-)

What I'm curious about, is how many people in this newsgroup would
actually really disagree with it. Maybe a little poll would be
interesting?

 

[dorayme]

No I was not quite happy, I was indifferent. I am (as was stated later)
on broadband and I do not see those speed issues.

OK. But what happens to your indifference when you have to make a site that
needs to be accessed by the general public around the world? Do you maintain
the indifference anyway? Do you lose it? Can you lose it on broadband? Where
money is concerned, would you find a way?

dorayme

 

[dorayme]

US, UK and Australian governments.

OK, I know nothing about all this. I thought you were talking about the sort
of web that would arise if folk - nothing to do with Govt contracts -
followed the html and css advice of many people here (that give advice).
This is a new twist in the thread and ... well... Travis ... I like it, I
like magic tricks and people pulling rabbits out of hats...

dorayme

 

[dorayme]

I am interested in hearing who you think the lunatics are... (present
company excluded) (0_o)

Well, now, I know you are not a lunatic. And I can't say anyone, who is in
the habit of giving advice here (besides present company) is a lunatic. And
Richard seems not to be with us any longer. And if I exclude present
company, er... um... well now, I don't think I can oblige you with an
answer. So drop the "lunatic" bit and take up the rest of my serious
question.



dorayme

 

[Travis Newbury]

OK. But what happens to your indifference when you have to make a site that
needs to be accessed by the general public around the world? Do you maintain
the indifference anyway? Do you lose it? Can you lose it on broadband? Where
money is concerned, would you find a way?

Actually I don't make websites, I create flash based Web e-learning
usually for an intranet. But I understand your point. My answer is
dependent on what does the site require? Would the site be more
effective if it caters to broadband (say a site that deals with live
music or video) or is it more an information type site? In your
specific example, if the site needed t be accessed by the general public
around the world, then I would lean in the direction of accessibility
and generic usability.

And that is where I lean with the issue of accessibility and usability.
The site owner must be allowed to create a site that works best for
his clients, not the general population. The two can be different.

 

[Travis Newbury]

OK, I know nothing about all this. I thought you were talking about the sort
of web that would arise if folk - nothing to do with Govt contracts -
followed the html and css advice of many people here (that give advice).
This is a new twist in the thread and ... well... Travis ... I like it, I
like magic tricks and people pulling rabbits out of hats...

No I have always been talking about this and the folks here. I can not
count the number of times that posters have warned how if you don't
follow the "rules" you would open your self to legal action because of
the laws of the US, UK and Australia. In the US it is currently with
government sites but I believe all sites in the UK and Australia fall
under this.

 

[dorayme]

Ooo, how I disagree Who are you/me/we to decide what it is that anyone
_needs_ What's a need? Needs develop. Though food, drink and safety are among
the first things you need, why would being able to express oneself creatively
not be a need but just some want all of a sudden? Who draws the line? Doesn't
a
blind person have the right of the experience to 'see' a barbie by handling
one?

You need to calibrate what you agree with or disagree with in this matter
against an important distinction, namely what is compulsory and what is
voluntary. You are right that it would be a decent thing for some people to
have access to some things not normally considered essential. But, taking
into account what should be voluntary and what should not be, it becomes
more complicated. It should not be illegal *not* to provide access to some
things however much they are desired. If you do not take this point into
account, there would be the very danger that Travis is concerned with, a
stifling conformity.

In particular, a new site on a new thing can happily be restricted. If it
becomes popular, by whatever means then some reassessment of access may then
be made. But voluntarily.

dorayme

 

[Mark Parnell]

No I have always been talking about this and the folks here. I can not
count the number of times that posters have warned how if you don't
follow the "rules" you would open your self to legal action because of
the laws of the US, UK and Australia. In the US it is currently with
government sites but I believe all sites in the UK and Australia fall
under this.

And that advice still rings true, regardless of whether you agree with
the laws in question or not.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You need to calibrate what you agree with or disagree with in this matter
against an important distinction, namely what is compulsory and what is
voluntary. You are right that it would be a decent thing for some people to
have access to some things not normally considered essential. But, taking
into account what should be voluntary and what should not be, it becomes
more complicated.

For a commercial non government site, everything should be voluntary.
There should be no regulations at all for the web. A company should be
able to do what ever they want with their website..

 

[dorayme]

For a commercial non government site, everything should be voluntary.
There should be no regulations at all for the web. A company should be
able to do what ever they want with their website..

When you say "For a commercial non government site, everything should be
voluntary." surely you are not merely saying there should be no government
regulations for non-government sites? Apart from a few Nazi types, no one
would dispute this. If you mean there should be no standards, no best
practice codes, no good guidelines, no core starting positions, then you
need to do more than just say it for folk to believe it.

To be fair to you, you have said more things and there are sentiments that
make sense. But I think the trouble is this: you need to grab a few likely
suspects and challenge them directly, this business of a group philosophy
that you seem to be objecting to is too easily skirted by any actual member.
Every one will protest that he or she does not do or say what you claim.

Or maybe I am wrong on this, excuse me for thinking aloud. Maybe there is an
emergent view of the group as a whole that is not attributable to any one
individual but which you are challenging anyway?

dorayme