Wow, now there's something I didn't expect. A well-meaning but equally discriminatory member stretching the example in an attempt to misrepresent the extent of my position.
Originally posted by Paul O'B
I find that remark quite offensive!! Why not charge disabled users double and also make it harder for them,it's not our fault they're disabled.
Didn't see *that* one coming. :rolleyes:
The point is not whether they do or don't, it is whether or not they *should* have enforceable access to private offers.
The point is that disabled users have a right to access everyday services that others take for granted.
As I have mentioned before on this topic, all it enforces is a disabled persons 'right to shop'. Is this really a good use of the law?
And the point is- where do we draw the line?
Treating a disabled person less favourably because they are disabled has been unlawful since December 1996.
Since October 1999, service providers have had to consider making reasonable adjustments to the way they deliver their services so that disabled people can use them.
The final stage of the duties, which means service providers may have to consider making permanent physical adjustments to their premises, comes into force in 2004.
Up to which level of disability are we ourselves morally and legally obliged to compensate for when methods already exist to assist those with certain disabilities in dealing with sites designed for a member of the 'average' majority?
Wherever we draw the line there will still be someone somewhere who is still unable to access services on the same level as those with lesser or no disabilities.
Given that the only browser that cannot rescale px fonts is IE/Win, why is it somehow 'our fault' when users are prevented from doing so by their 'browser of choice'?
My original point was that by making small allowances such as not using points or pixel sizes in our main text then we are all doing our bit to help accessibility. It's a small price to pay which will bring big benefits to those that require it.
Why isn't the finger pointing at MS instead for creating a browser that is discriminatory?