Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

UK Accessibility Report by the DRC


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 07:10 AM

The Disability Right Commision have today released a report testing 1000 sites for accessibility.

There was a webcast about the report shown this morning, which will be accessible on the site from tomorrow.

I'll post some thoughts on the report and the webcast later this evening, hereis a few links to commentary already made.

DRC Report into UK Web accessibility at the Accessify Forums (likely to be very good and probably better than most commentary)
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Statement on Web Access Report from UK Disability Rights Commission
UK fails disabled internet access test from netimperative
Websites 'failing' disabled users from the BBC

#2 James

James

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2104 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 07:15 AM

Hi Adrian,

I noticed that this was being discussed on the BBC news this morning, but had to dash out. Thanks for the links.

Regards,
James

#3 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 11:44 AM

Something else worth linking to before I can get my full thoughts down (off to cricket training in a few minutes!).

isolani - The DRC report into UK web accessibility blog entry by Accessify Forum member Isofarro.

Someone worthwhile listening to, I've spoken to Isofarro in the #accessibility chat room on irc.freenode.net.

Some very good comments on the webcast and its going to be updated overtime. Conclusions at the bottom are probably as worthwhile mentioning as anything.

Conclusions

The headlines are:
Many businesses are not conforming
Most businesses are vulnerable to a legal challenge
81% of websites fail minimum levels of access
The majority of problems were not contained in the WAI guidelines (WAI dispute this)
The knowledge deficit is so severe that government must consider involvement in promoting accreditation and registration (presumably of web developers)



#4 Ransak

Ransak

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 12:42 PM

The knowledge deficit is so severe that government must consider involvement in promoting accreditation and registration (presumably of web developers)


This would concern me very much, I hope that the U.S. does not follow suit.


Frank Vollono

#5 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 02:26 PM

Does not follow suit in which sense Frank? In setting up legislation to try and ensure people take accessibility seriously? Or in the government promoting accreditation and registration?

#6 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 03:52 PM

Right, stupidly, knowing that I would want to make some comments here, I made some notes from the webcast this morning. Knowing that I also wasn't going to be able to type up a long set of comments on it from work, I didn't think to bring the notes home to use when I could write this up :roll:

So, I'll do what I can from memory and point you to a couple other websites to fill in the blanks :D Also the sandwich lady turned up while it was on, buying my lunch is more important than watching a webcast uninterupted, so I had to miss a few minutes :P

I've grabbed a few of following bits from the DRC website and the report itself as they are worded better than I would manage.

OK, an overview of whats going on. The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) is an independent body established in April 2000 by Act of Parliament to stop discrimination and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. (Taken from the DRC website).

They commisioned The Centre for Human Computer Interaction Design at City University, London to survey a large and representative sample of websites used by the British public. (Taken from report)

This is brought about by the following: In Great Britain, Part 3 of the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) requires providers of goods, facilities and services to avoid the less favourable treatment of disabled people and also to make reasonable adjustments, including the provision of auxiliary aids and services, to any practices, policies or procedures which make it unreasonably difficult for disabled people to make use of the services they provide. Insofar as a website in itself constitutes a service, or is the primary medium for the delivery of a service, it will therefore be covered by Part 3 of the Act.(Taken from report)

The DDA was done in 1995 and certain parts have been brought into force at different times. The bit affecting websites is already in force and has been for sometime. This is nothing new, it is the same legislation that affects high street stores and the like. In a sense, why should similar rules apply to websites? Clearly with buildings, physical obstructions are probably a bigger impairment than visual problems. On the web, Vision is obviously a bigger issue as the physical side of things is much reduced.

It would be nice if people made things accessible because its the right thing to do, in reality though, that isn't the case and some people need the threat of legal action to encourage them. Not ideal, but I support it in that progress would be a lot slower without a legal requirement.

Anyway, back to the actual report.

The webcast started with a short intro by the head of the DRC and was quickly followed by a visually impaired person (I'm not sure if he was totally blind or just had vision problems) using JAWS screenreader on the CNN website to demonstrate some of the problems of browsing inaccessible sites in a screenreader. Difficult to imagine unless you see someone try and actually use it. Controls for screenreaders like JAWS are quite esoteric and its not something a sighted person would likely pick up very well.

It was interesting seeing the problems actually caused by table heavy sites in screenreaders, you get no real clues as to whether theres any information in a table you actually want, or if you can safely skip it. And even with tabulated data, it can be difficult to know what the data in each cell actually relates too.

Next was a lady presenting the report itself and the results.
They followed the WAI guidelines from the W3C for the testing and ran automatic tests to begin with. I don't know if they actually mentioned what application they used to test, but it would have been something like Bobby or Cynthia I expect.

Running these automated checks on the 1000 sites in the report revealed that only 19% complied with the most basic level of Web Accessibility, Priority A. This is the level that all sites really should meet to be in any way accessible. They acknowledged that these automatic checks are also not terribly accurate as some things are very difficult to check programatically, thinking of prinicples of accessibility rather than actual specified code. Therefore the number of sites meeting level A compliance is probably even less than that 19%.

After doing these checks they continued to Level AA, the level that sites should support, but may not cause a site to be totally inaccessible if not followed. After doing them automatically, they also did them manually and considered that only 2 sites of the 1000 met AA compliance. Thats a pretty appalingly low figure.

No sites managed AAA compliance, though its much more reasonable for people not to attempt this level too much. It would be nice if people did, but level AA is considered a pretty good goal.

Moving on, they did some practical user testing with the sites. Some fairly standards tests done by many people for usability, set specific tasks to complete on a particular site.

Of these tasks, blind people only managed to successfully complete them 53% of the time. Just think if every time you browsed the web, every other web site was so poorly done you couldn't manage to do what you went there for. Thats suggesting some pretty high levels of frustration. The partially sighted group managed 76% completion while the groups for Dyslexics, physically impaired and hearing impaired all managed over 80%. The average throughout all groups was 76% completion.

They then did something very interesting which I think people like Kin would be interested in. They compared task completion times between impaired people and non-impaired. Clearly the impaired group were generally slower, 3 to 5 times slower. However the interesting point is that sites that were more accessible, showed noticably faster completion times for unimpaired testers. Therefore suggesting that higher levels of accessibility also promote higher levels of usability.

How do you make your site more usable?
Make it more accessible to impaired visitors.

They then collated some of this data and noticed that there were nearly 600 reasons for a the various sites being innaccessible.

This is where some of the contention comes in. The DRC report suggests that only 45% of these noted issues are covered by the WAI guidance. Therefore meaning that even if a site were to be AAA compliant, they would not cover 55% (around 300) of the issues people raised.

The W3C contests this in the initial response I linked to in the first post.
They feel 95% of the issues raised are covered by WAI guidance, therefore suggesting that if a site follows them, they should cover all but 5% of the highlighted problems. A much better ratio, though I doubt we have heard the last of this point.

Theres a very interesting point here as well though. The DRC report suggests that of those 45% of issues covered by the WAI guidance, 82% of them can be picked up by adhering to just 8 checks.

Checkpoints accounting for most reported problems  

Checkpoint Priority
1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text  
element 1
2.2  Ensure that foreground and background  
colour combinations provide sufficient  
contrast when viewed by someone having  
colour deficits or when viewed on a black  
and white screen 2/3
6.3  Ensure that pages are usable when scripts,  
applets, or other programmatic objects are  
turned off or not supported. If this is not  
possible, provide equivalent information on  
an alternative accessible page 1
7.3  Until user agents allow users to freeze  
moving content, avoid movement in pages 2
10.1  Until user agents allow users to turn off  
spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups  
or other windows to appear and do not  
change the current window without  
informing the user 2
12.3  Divide large blocks of information into  
more manageable groups where natural  
and appropriate 2
13.1  Clearly identify the target of each link 2
14.1  Use the clearest and simplest language  
appropriate for a site?s content 1


By covering merely 8 checkpoints, you can clear up nearly 40% of highlighted accessiblity problems. Does that not sound like a worthy investment of time?

Thats probably the best bits of the reports findings, there is a bit more about awareness of accessibility, though they got a fairly poor response to it, so the findings may not be terribly accurate. They do however suggest that the web development industry as a whole is waking up to accessibility, but that good meaning designers and developers are being stopped by clients when trying to build in accessibility.

Then followed a gentleman explaining the DRC's recommendations based on these findings. These were pretty broad and far reaching. Not picking out any one thing in particular, but pretty much saying that everyone involved needs to do better.

This not only includes web designers and developers in making accessible sites, but also more support, training and advice for impaired users to ensure they have the best tools to suit their specific problems and know how to use them properly.

It also included the makers of assistive technologies to improve these products and make them work better and more correctly (if you thought coding for IE and NS4 was tricky, some of the screenreaders and the like are just as bad, if not worse for web standards support).

It also included training estabilishments, not just degree courses, but short courses as well, dealing in web design, should teach accessible design.

It also included makers of website creation tools to improve the way they assist developers in making accesisble sites.

As a big also, it includes website commisioners and owners, to empower them to require that tenders require accessibility consideration and that the finished product meets these requirements. It is afterall, the website owner, not the web designer, who gets taken to court if someone accuses them of not making reasonable effort.

there then followed some questions, but to be honest, I can't really remember what they were. One of them was posted on the website asking in what cases would you be able to forego accessiblity for style issues. the very pleasant answer was that there is no issue, there is never a case for reducing accessibility for the sake of style. The idea that accesisble cannot be stylish is a myth. I personally feel a myth spouted by lazy designers who just don't want to take accessibility into consideration. IMHO thats one thing that seperate a good designer and a great designer.

I think it was a very good report overall. You can probably argue about some of the points and how accurate some of it is. It is however very good publicity for the idea. There's already a post elsewhere on the board of someone reacting sharply to the BBC article suggesting a lot of website owners could be sued over their currently inaccessible sites. And I've seen the same in a couple other places.

Its the kind of report a designer can use as leverage to get bosses or clients to sit up and take notice of it a bit more. Its the kind of report that can make more designers sit up and listen a bit more!

Generally its pretty good, accessiblity experts could probably nit pick at bits, it only mentions WAI for example, not certain other things (The US Section508 can also be used for guidance), no mention of things like accesskeys as they are not part of the WAI Guidelines and such like.
I think most people pushing for accessibility would see it as an overall good idea and good result to move things forward.

If you've made it this far, I'm amazed but very happy, have a piece of cake and a cup of tea :P

#7 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9018 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 04:40 PM

That's fascinating stuff, Adrian, which I'm sure will have all sorts of consequences.

I'm not very close to all this. Does anyone know how the US legislation compares with the UK legislation? In particular, is one tougher than the other? How do any timetables for compliance compare?

#8 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 04:54 PM

As far as I know there isn't a US/Canadian equivilent to the DDA Barry. there is however the Section 508 guidelines in the US, though as far as I'm aware, that only affects government websites.

Thats not to say people shouldn't take notice of accessibility or that similar legislation will not be put in place in other countries though.

#9 amjid

amjid

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 15 April 2004 - 03:57 PM

Adrian,

Thanks for the great round-up.

I have downloaded the report so will be reading it this weekend.

I agree with you on the point that you can't really appreciate accessibility issues until you actually use a screen reader or observe a disabled person actually using a website. I experienced this for the first time recenlty and it is certainly an eye-opener.

The key issue for me is not to view accessibility as a 'box checking' exercise and instead actually make sure the site is usable by those it is trying to address.

Amjid

#10 DaveChild

DaveChild

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3446 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 03:51 AM

Interesting stuff, this, though I have to admit to being a little confused.

Egg.com, for example, was one of few sites listed as having excellent accessibility. 5 out of 5, in fact. Yet the site doesn't seem to be particularly accessible. The pages are amazingly bloated, with inline styles and javascript, and tonnes of coding errors, eg (there are far more than these, but to demonstrate just a few):

<script language="JavaScript">



// -->

</script>

<img src='/com.egg/images/spacer.gif' width='1' height='1'>

<script language="JavaScript1.2">

The table based layout uses spacer gifs extensively, and there are no alt tags (even blank ones) on them. There's no DTD. There's no character encoding. There's javascript outside the body and head areas. And a screen reader sees this:

[colourscheme_grass_390x50.gif]
  Egg TM.  
  [globalnav_toprow_bdr.gif]

  Banking Investing Insuring Click here to see all your accounts  
  Company info Security and privacy Legal info Help Contact us  
  [egg_nav_spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
  find out more about Egg Money Manager  
  [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
  Find out more about Egg Loans  
  [spacer.gif]
  Find out more about Egg Card  
  [spacer.gif]
  Look after your money  
  quick links
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif] Egg Money Manager demo     Egg Money Manager demo
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif] Egg Card - find out more Egg Card - find out more
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif] Loans - great offers         Loans - great offers [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif] Bonus rate for savings     Bonus rate for savings
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif] 10% off motor insurance   10% off motor insurance
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif] About Chip and PIN             About Chip and PIN [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif]
  Find out more about Egg Savings Accounts  
  [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif] [spacer.gif]
  [spacer.gif]


I was just curious as a result - what criteria did they use to measure the accessibility of sites in this survey? It's a little worrying that they would hold this site up as a gleaming example to others, when as far as I can tell, it's almost completely inaccessible ...

#11 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 04:41 AM

Where did you find it say Egg.com had good accessibility Dave? I can't find them mentioned in the report, and they actually said in the webcast that they asked the company who did the tests specifically not to tell them which 1000 sites were used or how individual sites rated.

Certainly a quick Automated test by Cynthia shows the home page does not meet priority 1 tests for accessibility.

#12 DaveChild

DaveChild

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3446 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 04:44 AM

It is true that they were asked not to name and shame the 800 or so poor ones, but today City University revealed 5 "examples of excellence", according to The Register.

#13 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 04:49 AM

Typical :roll:

Looking into it now for ya :)

#14 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 05:29 AM

It seems that perhaps some of their results are a bit odd. There's also problems highlighted with the Scottish Spinal Injuries site.

Not a great advert for the report. If people get hold of that and becomes widely known that some of the examples of accessbility excellance are actually pretty poor, its really going to damage the cause.

#15 DaveChild

DaveChild

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3446 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 06:42 AM

Very true, Adrian. I hope it doesn't detract from the overall message, because accessibility is very important, not just for the disabled. As more and more devices are internet-capable, it will become paramount to create accessible sites.

I would assume that the number that fail the basic guidelines would probably be higher than they state based on those 5 examples. But the fact that they have cited those sites as examples of excellence, when they are anything but, inspires little faith in the report itself.

Of course, had they not named any sites at all, there would be no issue and the message would remain untarnished.

I would quite like to see a report showing how many of the same 1000 sites passed which level of the Bobby guidelines, if any.

#16 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 16 April 2004 - 07:12 AM

Of course, had they not named any sites at all, there would be no issue and the message would remain untarnished.


I've just been discussing this over at Accessify. The fact they have incorrectly named those sites as being very accessible, only harms the credibility of the report. There are several other rants posted and in the process of being posted ranting about this. It completely dilutes the positive effect of the report and and you yourself have shown, its simply causing more confusion among developers.

#17 Conwy

Conwy

    New To Community

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 08:41 AM

Hi Folks, I'm new to this forum, but I notice a couple of posts questioning US legislation: In addition to 508 you also have The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This requires State and
local governments and places of public accommodation to furnish
appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure
effective communication with individuals with disabilities,
unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the
program or service or in an undue burden.

Russell aka Conwy

#18 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9018 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 08:46 AM

Welcome to the Forums, Conwy. :wave:

Do you know whether 508 or ADA is really causing much change yet? Is there a serious investment of effort to make this happen? Are there any teeth that people are beginning to feel in the US?

#19 BillSlawski

BillSlawski

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15644 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 05:12 PM

Hi Russell,

Welcome to the forums.

I'm not sure that there's really been that much of a push yet to get web sites to comply with section 508 or the ADA yet.

I've seen a few state home pages with "Bobby approved" seals on them which fail the descretionary part of the Bobby validation.

Anyway, good to have you aboard. Hope we can pursue that a little further.

#20 kensplace

kensplace

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1497 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 05:25 PM

Out of interest (seriously), do the rules cover mental illnesses? Or just physical?

#21 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 12 June 2004 - 05:07 PM

Lol, Bill, careful about mentioning Bobby, its not generally thought of very highly by those in the know. Its alright for doing some quick checks, but if you pass it, it doesn't actually mean a great deal.

Ken, they cover all kinds of impairement or disability. That could be some kind of visual impairment (you could even include me in that, as I wear glasses), it could be some kind of motor skill problem, it could even be something like dyslexia or people with SLD (severe learning difficulties).

Thats why there are sections in the W3C recommendations about using appropriate language and using <accr> and <abbr> properly.

#22 Ransak

Ransak

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 09:11 AM

Does not follow suit in which sense Frank? In setting up legislation to try and ensure people take accessibility seriously? Or in the government promoting accreditation and registration?


Sorry for the late reply. I was in Hong Kong on business for 10 days, and then up to my ears in work since I've gottn back Monday.

What I worry about is the state accrediting designers, or forcing any accessbility standards on private websites.

I'd rather the government stay out of my life as much as possible.

Frank V.

#23 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 10:39 AM

What I worry about is the state accrediting designers, or forcing any accessbility standards on private websites.


Do you think then that designers, and more importantly in cases their bosses, are going to make the effort to make site accessible then? Some will, and are, sure, but the problem is, so many aren't!

I don't know if the US have laws for access to buildings by wheelchairs, but its the same laws in the UK covering building access as web site access.

I'd rather the government didn't need to become involved and didn't need to make laws about it, but the simple truth is, people won't bother unless they are threatened in many cases.

Hopefully, if/when a site does get taken to court over this, it will be dealt with sensibly and properly. All to often government ideas get implimented very badly :roll:

If people we're to address the issues without the government being involved, then yeah, I'd like the gov to keep their noses out like you Frank. I just can't see that being the place though, so, as with other crime and discrimination, the government is kind of needed in this case to try and twist peoples arms.

#24 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9018 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 10:57 AM

I believe that carrots always work better than sticks. Often things like environmental protection or accessibility can just turn out to make extremely good business sense. Often it doesn't take much more effort. It just means not being lazy, doing a bit of careful thinking and then doing it right. ;)

#25 Ransak

Ransak

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 11:40 AM

Do you think then that designers, and more importantly in cases their bosses, are going to make the effort to make site accessible then? Some will, and are, sure, but the problem is, so many aren't!


In all honesty, that is not my problem and it shouldn't be yours. If a company is not keeping up to your standards then you should take your business elsewhere, not force them to comply to your wishes.

If there is enough demand, companies will comply. At what point does society say we cannot accomodate every single individual?

I take your point about wheelchair access to heart. I think perhaps lines can be drawn between critically neccessary places for people to visit (such as government buildings, medical facilities, etc.) and private enterprises. IF I want to own a Big & Tall clothing store must I also provide clothes for the Anorexic and Bulimic patrons? I just don't feel that I or anyone else is oblighed to accomodate anyone into my personal property.

In matters of public funding then go crazy and dictate what you will.

Frank Vollono

#26 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 12:07 PM

With the way the web is evolving, do you not think its a critically neccesary place for people to be able to acces?

We're not necessarily on about business cases or amount demand, we're on about discrimination. If you were to lose your sight tomorrow, would you hold your hands up and say "oh well, I won't be using the web again then" because people don't see a 10% market share (and if you limit it to just people with visual problems, even less) as worth while catering for? It certainly becomes your problem then doesn't it.

The wheelchair access applies to all building as far as I know, not just government buildings and medical facilities. Is a government building more necessary than a food shop or a clothing store? If I hadn't worked for the local gov for 3 yrs, I know which I would've spent more time in.

Its like treating someone as a second class citizen.

Private businesses have responsibilites too. When you feel hard done by, you moan like hell that a company should treat you better, should be responsible for providing its service to you properly. Think how many disabled people feel when they can't even get access to a service because people are either too lazy to do anything about it or don't feel its their problem.

I drive a car around polluting the atmosphere, not my problem and shouldn't be yours presumably? Its not going to affect me much.

Sorry, I just don't see how you can justify that argument.

#27 Ransak

Ransak

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 04:42 PM

With the way the web is evolving, do you not think its a critically neccesary place for people to be able to acces?


Not every site is critically neccessary to visit.

We're not necessarily on about business cases or amount demand, we're on about discrimination. If you were to lose your sight tomorrow, would you hold your hands up and say "oh well, I won't be using the web again then" because people don't see a 10% market share (and if you limit it to just people with visual problems, even less) as worth while catering for? It certainly becomes your problem then doesn't it.


I can't say for sure until that happened. I would be missing the internet for sure, but I highly doubt that I'd sue anyone for an american disabilities act violation. My only basis for that is that I've been in situations where I could have easily sued and did not.


The wheelchair access applies to all building as far as I know, not just government buildings and medical facilities. Is a government building more necessary than a food shop or a clothing store? If I hadn't worked for the local gov for 3 yrs, I know which I would've spent more time in. 


I was not talking about fact, just giving my idea of where the line should be drawn.

Its like treating someone as a second class citizen.


You might as well give the person a gun and tell them to rob me cause it is the same thing. By forcing me to take money and resources out of my pocket to accommodate someone else you are robbing me.

Private businesses have responsibilites too. When you feel hard done by, you moan like hell that a company should treat you better, should be responsible for providing its service to you properly. Think how many disabled people feel when they can't even get access to a service because people are either too lazy to do anything about it or don't feel its their problem.


First, I (The business owner) Do not owe anyone anything.

Second, I never moan. If something is seriously effecting me at work and I cannot get a resolution, I quit and get another job. I would NEVER think to sue unless I was denied salary I earned.

I imagine disabled people feel like crap when they can not get into a store, and I am truly sorry. Still you do not infringe one persons freedom to give it to another.

I drive a car around polluting the atmosphere, not my problem and shouldn't be yours presumably? Its not going to affect me much.


That's a little differernt to me. Your actions are causing me harm. By you driving and polluting you are effecting my health. Not being compliant is inaction. I argue that you can force people to stop harming people, but I'm not sure people should be forced to help.

Sorry, I just don't see how you can justify that argument.


No problem, we will never see eye to eye on this. Like I said above, it's all about action and inaction. If your actions are harming me then you should be forced to stop. If my inaction is not helping you, then that's my purgative. I guess my beliefs are that people should want to help others, but not be forced.

My opinions, do not mean that I am hateful towards people with disabilities and for my own personal websites I would try to be as accessible as possible, but if the company I am working for does not give a hoot for accessibility, I feel that is their right.

Frank V.

#28 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 26 June 2004 - 08:43 AM

You might as well give the person a gun and tell them to rob me cause it is the same thing. By forcing me to take money and resources out of my pocket to accommodate someone else you are robbing me.


Sorry, thats just rubbish. Apart form the fact that creating accessible sites doesn't need to be more expensive then any other site, comparing it to robbery is just ridiculous IMO.

Like I said above, it's all about action and inaction. If your actions are harming me then you should be forced to stop. If my inaction is not helping you, then that's my purgative. I guess my beliefs are that people should want to help others, but not be forced.


Not taking action is as bad as causing harm IMHO. If you were to see someone trheatening another person with a gun, and you could do something about it (calling the police or whatever), do you think that not doing anything is an ok thing to do? Because of course, its silly of that person to think that you would use any of your valuable time to help them when you're not forced to.

Your last point there is the main problem. If people WAnTED to help out, then we wouldn't be in a situation where the government needs to makes laws. The simple fact of the matter is, that people (as you have shown) aren't willing to do it themselves, so to stop this kind of discrimination laws are created.

Personally, that entire argument makes me think that law and legislation is required and that I hope other governments do something similar.

Your signature talks about aiming high, how is a blind person (for example) supposed to aim high if no one cares, doesn't make an effort, and can't see why they should be expected to do anything to take account of that blindness.

#29 Ransak

Ransak

    Light Speed Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 26 June 2004 - 09:06 PM

Sorry, thats just rubbish. Apart form the fact that creating accessible sites doesn't need to be more expensive then any other site, comparing it to robbery is just ridiculous IMO.


I'm sorry to hear you be so dismissive of other peoples time. Time is money. I was being overdramtic I admit, but I still think the point holds.

Not taking action is as bad as causing harm IMHO. If you were to see someone trheatening another person with a gun, and you could do something about it (calling the police or whatever), do you think that not doing anything is an ok thing to do? Because of course, its silly of that person to think that you would use any of your valuable time to help them when you're not forced to.


I would and have stopped situations such as the above. I think people should help others. I do not believe peope should be FORCED to help others however.

Your signature talks about aiming high, how is a blind person (for example) supposed to aim high if no one cares, doesn't make an effort, and can't see why they should be expected to do anything to take account of that blindness.


There are plenty of people who care. You and I are two examples. I believe in Aiming High. If someone else does not that is there problem, I will not force them.

Frank Vollono

#30 Adrian

Adrian

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 5779 posts

Posted 27 June 2004 - 06:08 AM

Well, glad to know you personally would try Frank, I guess that after working with some great kids who have various impairments, I get a little annoyed at the idea that some people would just dismiss them as a cost they'ed rather not spend. It brings out the evangelist in me.

There was a discussion on the Accessify Forums about whether scare tactics, in the form of forcful laws, were really the way to go about things. My basic response there was 'hell yeah' too, though even in a community full of people striving to make the web more accessible, some didn't like the idea.

Perhaps forcing people into isn't the right way, I'd rather people did it because they wanted to, and therefore did it proeprly, rather than doing it because they have to and doing as little as possible to meet the requirements.



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users