Ferre — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:30:15 +0000

DaveyBoy wrote: HELLO FERRE

Hello Davey!

dk01 — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:07:04 +0000

As a target employee I can no longer discuss this case

DaveyBoy — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:16:42 +0000

Ferre wrote: They won't win this case, it's way too rediculous. What's next? Sue publishers for books that are not available in braille?

HELLO FERRE

Ferre — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:51:38 +0000

They won't win this case, it's way too rediculous. What's next? Sue publishers for books that are not available in braille?

Busy — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:39:00 +0000

As mentioned you can't please 100% no matter what.

Say you have a shop, it has stairs, you put in a ramp. You have made it accessible for wheel chairs etc but in some cases made it worse or other types of disabilites. Some people without a leg, or bung knees etc find it easier to do stairs than ramps (depends on the incline). So you please some, disappoint others. If you can cater for stairs and ramp then bonus but not everyone has that big of a shop.

demonhale — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:31:21 +0000

one thing I like about the internet is that its a great balancer... a small business can compete with a big business on the net... now if you have a 100% share of people with accessibility issues and your site or business can cater for them, the better it is... dont you think???

starter — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:49:22 +0000

Another good question that I was pondering over the last few years...

The web is made of millions and millions of sites, but if you look around and ask how many of them are really complient or built with accessibilty in mind? and why did the web get so big in such a time? then you probably will come to the same conclusion that I have.

Nowadays anybody with a scanner and someway of uplaoding it can be called a web designer (I have actually seen them around). I suppose thats the plus side of it that anybody can get a website and display some sort of information going pretty easily, although some are expert in thier own fields and publish valuable information from thier own time and effort but do not wish to spend any more further time or money,
but this goes back to the question of whos at fault, the browser makers or the people making the pages?

If I was to say hey guess what, all web browers from now on will only display pages with complient codes and accessibilities in mind, what would happen then? a lot of sites disappears maybe, a lot of would be web designers be discourage to publish thier sites because its such a pain possibly ... you can work this one out.

Yeah, it would be great if it was the law because this would make life a lot easier for people like myself who livelyhood depends on it, but I cannot see this happening, simply because you cannot have one rule for the rich(large companies) and one rule for the not so rich (small businesses and personal sites).

But hey I ve seen stranger things happening before, you never know, all the browser makers like MS and Nutscrape etc might decide to sit down on the same table drinking beers and discussing how to make the cyber world a better place.

I better stop blabbering

DaveyBoy — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:57:57 +0000

Roo wrote: You certainly can! It is law most everywhere that not only do entraces and exits need to be accessable, but so do bathrooms.

Ever try to push a wheelchair with an oxygen tank into a narrow doorway, or heft it up over steps with a 200 pound women in it? I have.

Oh right ignore me then :blech:

JeevesBond — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:27:33 +0000

Quote: if you have a physical disability and can't walk, can you go and sue a store that doesn't have a ramp etc. for disabled access?

That is indeed the law, in the UK too. It's all part of showing 'due dilligence'. Now this may start lots of people shouting extremes about poor shop owners. This isn't the case.

If you have a listed building and widening doors is impossible, or the shop door opens onto a sliver of pavement (then a road) and a ramp will not fit, the law would not apply. If the shop owner has shown due diligence and catered for disabled people, where possible, then there is nothing to worry about.

The Target Lawsuit
The NFB asked Target to make their site conform to accessibility laws 10 months ago. Target completely ignored that request, they didn't attempt to rectify the problems or open a dialogue on the subject:

NFB wrote: The website is no more accessible today than it was in May of last year, when we first complained to Target.

(from: http://www.webstandards.org/2006/02/09/taking-aim-at-targetcom/ )

Target have not shown due diligence. They will lose the lawsuit and the Internet will become a better place for it, Web Designers that work to standards will now have substantial leverage with clients.

Tell a client they can't have a scrolling marquee because it hinders accessibility to the site for blind people, and they'll probably ignore you. Tell them someone just got sued for breaking the guideline they're asking you to break and they'll listen.

This is widening the market for designers who use standards... As long as Target lose the case.

Animation/Flash Worries
I don't think Flash animation is a problem. Section 508 says:

Section 508 wrote: When animation is displayed, the information shall be displayable in at least one non-animated presentation mode at the option of the user.

Meaning that when creating a Flash site, an HTML equivalent is required. A flash intro is fine (apart from being annoying) as it rarely conveys any information that is not available on the rest of the site. The other constraint discussed here is the refresh rate/flicker rate of animation:

Section 508 wrote: (j) Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.

I don't think this applies to Flash. It might be slow, but I've never seen a flash animation flicker (unless the author actually wanted it to - that doesn't mean the technology shouldn't be used). In real terms this means that and should both be avoided.

On and The WAI say:

W3C WAI wrote: Note. The BLINK and MARQUEE elements are not defined in any W3C HTML specification and should not be used. Refer also to guideline 11.

Pretty unequivocal.

That Evil 508 Site

Winston Churchill wrote: You can always rely on America to do the right thing, once it has exhausted the alternatives.

I'm being mean, but at least they're trying. In their defense, accessibility doesn't really say they have to write valid code, just something that doesn't break their rules. These rules are pretty specific and, as far as I know, don't refer to any W3C Recommendations.

Also remember that the 508 Guidelines aren't applicable to every US site, only Government sites.

Roo — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:59:41 +0000

Quote: if you have a physical disability and can't walk, can you go and sue a store that doesn't have a ramp etc. for disabled access?

You certainly can! It is law most everywhere that not only do entraces and exits need to be accessable, but so do bathrooms.

Ever try to push a wheelchair with an oxygen tank into a narrow doorway, or heft it up over steps with a 200 pound women in it? I have.