SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 36 of 36
  1. #26
    American't awestmoreland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    1,168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Paul O'B
    The point is that disabled users have a right to access everyday services that others take for granted.
    "Rights" are things that are laid down in law. I hope that the way a web page is or isn't written is never defined by law

    The fact remains that on a private/non-governmental website, it is the publisher's loss if the page isn't accessible by the widest possible audience, however the publisher is not engaging in any kind of predjudice towards any part of the community.

    Your statement suggests that I am being prejudiced to that section of the community that is color-blind if I suggest that users of my page "Press the blue button".

    Am I being prejudiced towards the dyslexic if I use words of more than one syllable?

    I appreciate that your intentions are good and you should be applauded for that, but don't let political correctness cloud your judgement.


    ATB,

    Andy
    From the English nation to a US location.

  2. #27
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,350
    Mentioned
    179 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    "Rights" are things that are laid down in law. I hope that the way a web page is or isn't written is never defined by law

    Too late I'm afraid. The laws already cover it.

    Here's an extract from this article:

    http://www.iwdp.co.uk/articles/accessibility_why.htm
    Quote------------------------------------------------------
    Any disabled person could if they wanted to make a complaint against you or your site claiming you are discriminating against them.

    There was a case in Australia in 2000 against the website of the Sydney Commission by a man alleging its website for the Olympic games constituted discrimination on the basis of disability, he won the case.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    So whether we like it or not the framework is actually already in place.

    Lets face it everybody gets older. I've started wearing glasses and will always adjust the text size on the screen and I hate it when the size is fixed. So if web designers can start to appreciate the difficulties some users are having then I think we will all benefit in the end.

    While I understand that some websites will have no worth to some disabled viewers and if you are creating your home website for you and your family then I think you should design it how you like. And I believe you are perfectly entitled to do this. However if your site is aimed at the general public then I believe that you should not knowingly discriminate against any sector.

    And as I said earlier it doesn't take much effort.(pt px % em - hmmmm wasn't too difficult.)

    Sorry to go on.

    Paul

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    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.
    Didn't see *that* one coming.

    The point is that disabled users have a right to access everyday services that others take for granted.
    The point is not whether they do or don't, it is whether or not they *should* have enforceable access to private offers.
    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?

    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.
    And the point is- where do we draw the line?
    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.

    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.
    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'?

    Why isn't the finger pointing at MS instead for creating a browser that is discriminatory?
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  4. #29
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by anode
    Of course site owners should make their own decisions. I would say "I am not interested in these potential visitors' business" is not a great business decision. Feel free to disagree.
    Sorry. Had to chime in here. I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to add some remarks. This debate is always heated, and I like to throw in my $.02. Adhering to accessibility guidelines does more than support the disabled. Don’t forget that search engine spiders are essentially blind users. Structuring a site so that information flows logically is important. Does accessibility have any bearing on whether to use px or pt? Probably not, but since the discussion here has shifted to the accessibility debate, accessibility is important for many business decisions.

    Bill, I understand your position that you don’t want to have things imposed on you and that’s fine, but to push in the direction and even suggest that accessibility is not that important is spreading ignorance. Your choice, you choose, but you seem like a pretty well respected person on these boards and it surprises that you’d take the “freedom to choose” stance on the accessibility issue. Are you playing devil's advocate?

    As consultants and professionals, we need to make our clients aware of the implications of ignoring the issues. Do I say we need to support every possible convention for accessibility? Of course not, but we need be aware of them and leave our designs open for future implementation of such devices.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chrispalle
    Bill, I understand your position that you don’t want to have things imposed on you and that’s fine, but to push in the direction and even suggest that accessibility is not that important is spreading ignorance. Your choice, you choose, but you seem like a pretty well respected person on these boards and it surprises that you’d take the “freedom to choose” stance on the accessibility issue. Are you playing devil's advocate?
    Firstly, I never once stated that I or anyone else should regard the issue of accessibility as unimportant. Evenso, as important as I believe it is, I believe that the issue of choice is even more important and worthy of protection.
    Unfashionably, I consider the 'right of choice' of site authors and business/service owners to be as 'inalienable' as those of the various minorities some here are seeking to represent.

    I do not state these views as devil's advocate. I stand squarely behind all of my (many) statements on this subject as strongly felt points of principle.
    I am first and foremost a designer. Significantly, I am one who believes that the site author should have first crack as to how the detail of a site should appear to the user.
    I am fully in favour of end-users being able to override and customise a site's appearance in their own favour according to their tastes and/or requirements.

    The one part of this particular topic that I find totally unacceptible is that the finger of discrimination can potentially be pointed at us (site designers/developers/authors/owners) solely on the basis on our preferential use of px(-perfect) type.

    I deeply resent the notion that 'we' can be legally condemned for the failings of MS's IE/Win* development team and the end-user's self-inflicted limitations, by which I refer to their own consumer ignorance that leads them to use the one browser that restricts their ability to compensate for the disabilities (vis a vis px vs pt).
    (* IE/Mac has never had a problem resizing px-sized fonts)

    We should not be obliged to forego our right to initally present our sites (and those of our clients) in as precise detail as we envisioned solely to compensate for the unique accessibility/usability limitations of one, single browser - especially when other browsers are freely and equally available without such limitations.
    When the end-user can freely and easily obtain and use 'superior' alternatives that are not subject to certain limitations, they shouldn't be empowered to push the blame onto others, but must take responsibility for the restrictions inherent in their own poor consumer decisions - just like the rest of us.
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  6. #31
    SitePoint Evangelist S7even's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    How did I miss this thread?

    Personally I support accessibility but I don't have a problem to brake the "rules" when I need to.
    Here are some points:

    1) Section 508 and other laws
    What is the law about the billions of people around the world that do not have access to the internet at all? If you think about it in this way, "accessible to all" seems hypocritical.
    Also, your laws are compulsory for you only, not everybody.

    2)As a web developer I will explain to the client what is good and what is bad about every method and technology that can be used. After that, If the client chooses something that is not very accessible (e.g. Flash) thats fine with me.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Eh...what happened to the thread about pt vs. px?

  8. #33
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ask Paul O'B.
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  9. #34
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,350
    Mentioned
    179 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    I'm keeping quiet this time

  10. #35
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Imagine getting sued for publishing a magazine that had small print in some places or because your band did not play loud enough as there were deaf people in the room. I think disabled people would be chuckling at some of this. If people have been sued successfully in the US for sites that were a bit inaccessable, then it adds to the large body of evidence that shows how litigation mania has made the US of A, one sick puppy in this regard. And it is spreading to other countries. Businesses are closing their doors even here in Australia as public liability insurance preimums have begun to go through the roof.
    There is much to be said on both sides. What about my right to create a good design which takes thought and creativity. Am I to throw it out the window to comply with some guideline?
    I actually found this thread on a search to find out whether I should px or pt in a style sheet.
    I think I know what to do now.
    I think........

  11. #36
    SitePoint Enthusiast Wicksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ...i realise this thread is long buried, but it appears i have changed the link for the article quoted by Paul


    ...it can be found at http://www.iwdp.co.uk/accessibility_why.htm

    ...sorry if you tried to find it and all you got was a 404


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •