The Internet vs. The Blind

[rjh01]

Hi,

Sorry if I was being cryptic, <snip>

Thanks for that. Looks like I was not the only one who leaned something from your post.

 

[Gurdur]

Does a shopping site for the blind have any obligation to be usable by the deaf?

Oh, how ....... stupid.

Serious question. I fail to see why any internet site has an obligation to be otherly accessible.

You've already shown your opinion to be worthless and irrelevant. Not exactly honest to call such an ignorant strawman a "serious question".

And I'm miffed

But of course you are. Like always. How precious.

 

[CFLarsen]

One of my first arguments on this site was with Claus on disabled access to web sites. It was my baptism of fire against the mighty Claus

Thank you.

What, no sacrifice? No food and gold on my altar? No virgins thrown into the volcano in which I reside?

With luck, we should hear the tired old arguments voiced here again.

And those are?

ETA: It is interesting in its own right as well as a good source for developers to see how real people cope with real issues about web access when blind or partially sighted and what can be/is being done:

Royal National Institute of Blind People

I can't view it.

Well, if their site is not accessible to the blind, then huzzah for the judge.

If, however, it is (as Target claims), then this was unfair.

But it's really not difficult (although it is more expensive) to have an e-commerce site which the blind can use. Large retailers really need to have a clue by now.

It's simply a matter of how many potential customers you think you can afford to lose. I'm far from sure retailers realize just how many blind-to-various-degrees people there are out there.

But look how many lawsuits it took before they put wheelchair ramps in. They aren't going to spend the money until they need to.

Very true. Or see the need for their business.

You'd think so, but unfortunately, the majority of web developers out there shouldn't be in business in the first place. There's a shortage of skill, so every cowboy out there calls himself a web developer these days and attempts to make websites without the first clue about best practices.

Oh, yes. I can tell you stories...

Out of curiosity, I checked Target's homepage with the W3C markup validation. It failed validation. Then I checked this forum. It failed too. I checked the randi.org homepage. Failed.

You can't expect someone who falls at the first stumbling block to implement accessibility standards properly. And apparently, most developers can't code valid XHTML.

Well, sometimes, it's a question of "Does it work?" more than a question of "Does it work and is perfectly written?" [Sarcasm] Most code written today is probably not written to adhere either standard or top efficiency. [/Sarcasm]

Which, of course, goes for a lot of other skills as well...

I think the issue could be due to people using things like Flash animations and/or Java Applets in their web design.

It is, for a large part. The web is very much a visual medium.

 

[tkingdoll]

GodMark2, in the case, I really can't see what Target's defence was. They are claiming that their site complies with the law, so presumably they have decided to try and reinterpret the law rather than claim their site isn't accessible.

Interestingly, in the UK at least, an e-commerce site, in the law (for tax purposes as well as accessibility) is considered the same as a physical shop front. However, unlike a shop front, there's little except money stopping you from making it accessible to all.

 

[drkitten]

Does a shopping site for the blind have any obligation to be usable by the deaf?

Serious question. I fail to see why any internet site has an obligation to be otherly accessible.

Because anti-discrimination laws are not confined to the physical. Any business practice that unreasonably discriminates against the disabled is illegal under US law.

So, yes, since there are people who are both blind and deaf, a shopping site for the blind should also be usable by the deaf. (We actually had a student like that a while ago, although I didn't have him in any of my classes specifically.) That's not that difficult, actually. They have gadgets that will "read" text "aloud" in Braille using a little servo-driven pad. If you look at GodMark2's example, our former student would have had no problem wth the Randi site (it would still be accessible to him). Target, which has no text for the gadget to read, would be a blank screen.

 

[sophia8]

I can't believe we're still having this argument (wasn't there a thread about it three or four years ago?).
There are several arguments for making websites accessible:
It increases the site's readership (and thus increases your customer base);
It makes the site search-engine friendly (and thus increases your customer base);
It makes the site easier to load and read on old machines with old browsers (and thus increases your customer base).
In other words, it's sound business sense, like providing your physical shop with wheelchair access.


And note to Complexity, and any others who think the blind/visually impaired are nothing to do with them: you could lose your sight at any time through accident or illness. The first time I became aware of the need for web accessibility was back in 2002, when I took a computer programming class alongside a blind man. He'd been perfectly sighted and able-bodied until the age of thirty, when he got some sort of disease that took his sight in a week. He would regularly rant about the many websites that he couldn't "read".
Just remember, it could be you.....

 

[H3LL]

What, no sacrifice? No food and gold on my altar? No virgins thrown into the volcano in which I reside?

I can't view it.

I can.

It's simply a matter of how many potential customers you think you can afford to lose.

No, it's not simply a matter or losing customers. In many cases it's an interpretation of the law, in other cases a simple common courtesy.

------------------

I'll even take issue with Teek's argument about niche market publishers. If my spouse is keenly interested in "Dumpsters Around The World", if I was blind or partially sighted, why should I be denied access to the site to buy them a copy for their birthday. I don't want to read it, I don't need it in large print, braille or audio.

-------------------

I fail to see the argument that a vendor's perception of their customers should be used to exclude anyone when methods are available to include as many as possible.

By analogy. Should shops selling rock-climbing equipment be exempt from providing wheelchair access because so few of their customers are without limbs?

See how silly it sounds.

The methods to help are available. They are getting better all the time. It's not too hard for any web developer with skill to make the adjustments.

I heard a story, I have no idea whether true or not, that a wheelchair-bound person in Birmingham, spends all his time finding shops that he cannot access and successfully suing them. Few have a case to answer for not having access. They had 12(?) years advance notice and government grants to make corrections.

Maybe more court cases against web sites would help. Does the above chap, if he exists, have a partially sighted friend?

Could entrepreneurial developers be able to check websites, find if they fail, contact the owners, waive legal liability at them and offer to correct for a fee?

Maybe it would help weed out the "Oh, yes, I can tell you stories...." developers and help the skilled developers.

Do owners of failed sites have a case against their web developers if disabled access was never offered?

.

ETA: AND what Sophia8 said (Missed the post by failing to refresh)

 

[Gurdur]

I can't believe we're still having this argument ....

It's just a couple of stupid people who don't actually care about the issue but seizing upon it just to get their rocks off by being nasty. The fact that they do it on such an issue says lots about them. They're not going to listen to rational arguments on the topic, since they don't actually care about it as such.

 

[tkingdoll]

I'll even take issue with Teek's argument about niche market publishers. If my spouse is keenly interested in "Dumpsters Around The World", if I was blind or partially sighted, why should I be denied access to the site to buy them a copy for their birthday. I don't want to read it, I don't need it in large print, braille or audio.

H3LL, you haven't read what I wrote. ANY site that SELLS something is an e-commerce site. I already stated that e-commerce sites absolutely should be accessible. You shouldn't stop a blind person buying what a sighted person can freely buy.

You don't buy the book on the site about the book. Publishers are not retailers, although their main sites often have an e-commerce section (which should be fully accessible). But a microsite which exists only to promote a book does not need to be accessible to the blind. It would be an ideal world if it did, but the chances of a blind person looking at the site are not large enough to justify sacrificing the style that the client wants (e.g. Flash content) or paying the extra money. If you want to buy the book, go to Amazon.

Here's an example: http://www.dylanmessaging.com/home

That is one of the most amazing websites on the internet. But it doesn't work for the blind. Conceptually, it doesn't work for the blind, so there's zero point in it working for the blind in development, either. It would be insanity to say "this site has to work for the blind, therefore you can't have the create-your-own-Dylan-video-message idea".

The minute you try and make ALL sites accessible to the blind, you lose a massive chunk of creativity. Remember that most people are not blind. It's a bit like insisting that blind people should be able to go and touch the Mona Lisa.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If a blind person at work accesses video porn on the internet that he can't see, should he be fired?

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

I can.

*wooosh*

 

[Giggywig]

*wooosh*

Does this mean that you think the point flew over H3ll's head? Could you comment on why you can't view the website?

 

[Complexity]

Because anti-discrimination laws are not confined to the physical. Any business practice that unreasonably discriminates against the disabled is illegal under US law.

I don't think that this is any of the government's business.

I can think of many moral and pragmatic reasons to make buildings and internet sites accessible. I don't think doing so should be compelled by law.

 

[Complexity]

And note to Complexity, and any others who think the blind/visually impaired are nothing to do with them: you could lose your sight at any time through accident or illness. The first time I became aware of the need for web accessibility was back in 2002, when I took a computer programming class alongside a blind man. He'd been perfectly sighted and able-bodied until the age of thirty, when he got some sort of disease that took his sight in a week. He would regularly rant about the many websites that he couldn't "read".
Just remember, it could be you.....

I'm in favor of accessibility; I don't think it should be compelled.

It is very likely that I will lose my vision before I die. I think ten more years of legal vision is optimistic. I'm sure I will rant with the best of them. I don't think I should be able to use the government to force people and companies to make sites accessible.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Can we ban any movie that shows a male and female in love? Its not fair to homosexuals.

Can we ban the selling of condoms? Its not fair to women since they have no rods

Can we ban gloves? They arent fair to people that dont have hands

this is ridiculous.

 

[drkitten]

I don't think that this is any of the government's business.

That is of course your perogative. You may also believe that it is not the government's business whether or not you beat your wife.

Society at large, and the government that represents that society, disagrees. As such, they have enacted laws that you are compelled to obey regardless of whether you think it's their business.

 

[CFLarsen]

Does this mean that you think the point flew over H3ll's head? Could you comment on why you can't view the website?

It's a website for the Royal National Institute of Blind People.







Which I can't view.





Tough crowd.

 

[H3LL]

H3LL, you haven't read what I wrote.

Probably not fully getting your meaning, but your comments were rather familiar:

From the article linked below:

People who design in Flash "consider themselves artists," said accessibility expert Joe Clark. "They find the idea of a blind person wanting to (use) their site to be slightly weird."

"We hesitated to use Flash, but we wanted (the site) to be noticed. We wanted it to be bleeding-edge. We had committed to a Shockwave game, and since we were going in that direction, we decide to try to use Flash."

Hopefully all this will be changing (or has changed):

Smith hopes to use Flash MX to retrofit the site so blind children can also use it.

and

"The main impetus was to demonstrate what the new version of Flash is capable of, in terms of accessibility," said Peter Pinch, director of technology for interactive content at WGBH Interactive.

"It's very exciting to be able to reach a broader audience than in the past -– to think that blind, visually impaired and deaf users can enjoy our content, as well as everyone else," he said.

Excerpts taken from the full article.... Flash News Flash: It's Accessible

I'll reiterate:

I fail to see the argument that a vendor's perception of their customers should be used to exclude anyone when methods are available to include as many as possible.

.

 

[Travis]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. We're actually creating software to let blind people "view" webpages?

When did we stop throwing them into the river to drown?


I'm always so behind on these things.

 

[tkingdoll]

Probably not fully getting your meaning, but your comments were rather familiar:

From the arrticle linked below:





Hopefully all this will be changing (or has changed):



and



Excerpts taken from the full article.... Flash News Flash: It's Accessible

.

I assume you aren't a developer? The techniques described in that article aren't practical for a huge amount of sites. And they add significant man hours to a project which most sites aren't worth paying for. And the example given is for an educational science site. Such a site should be accessible, it's a public service.

Did you look at the Dylan site I linked to? There's no way of making that blind-accessible because the video output changes. Do you therefore think the site shouldn't exist?

Blind people can buy the Dylan album anywhere - the site promoting it is irrelevant to their needs. As I said, it's like complaining that they can't touch the Mona Lisa, yes it's a shame, but that's not what the artist had in mind when he created it. They're missing out on an experience that the sighted are fortunate to have. That's going to happen - they're blind.

The idea that all websites could or should be 'viewable' to the blind is silly. Only those equivalent to a shop front, in law, should have to adhere to disability discrimination laws. Nowhere does the law say "blind people must have exactly the same experiences in life as the sighted". That would be nuts.

And it's also important to realise that companies make decisions based on ROI. When building a promotional site (not an e-commerce site), they should take into account whether or not the extra expenditure on accessibility will be repaid in additional revenue. With a niche market site, that's unlikely to be the case.

Here's another great site the blind can't use: http://mysims.ea.com/

That's mainly because the developers think having a site which reflects the game (which can only be done in Flash) far outweighs the extremely unlikely chance that a blind person is interested in reading about a game they can't play. They aren't going to pay for extra development, there's zero ROI. They would have to pay for an entirely separate site for the blind. Is it worth it? No.

See www.jkrowling.com for an example of how you have to have two different sites to have Flash for the blind. Now think about how much extra that cost JK Rowling.