"As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read Braille."
How many web users are disabled to the point of using screen readers (anyone using it by choice not by necessity doesn't count, that's their own issue)? Probably not much more than that. But you don't advocate publishers being required to aid them do you? Doesn't sound like it. Because it was explicitly designed to be accessible. And because it is relatively easy and the incremental cost is small. As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read Braille. However, many have a scanner that allows them to read printed material using OCR and a text-to-speech converter. The most useful alternatives are large-print versions and audio recordings, and many organisations will make their publications available in these formats on request. Have you actually looked at the coding on the Target website? I have, many times. The accessibility (and standards-compliance) could be improved dramatically at virtually no cost. One of the biggest problems is that nearly all the links are graphical but no 'alt' attributes have been provided. You try to navigate when JAWS reads "link graphic six hundred twenty five million three hundred forty two thousand seven hundred ninety one". Where does that link point to? Damned if I know. And each page contains several hundred links like it. The secondary navigation might look like text but it isn't - it's a honking great image map. Want to resize the text? Sorry, can't do that. Semantic structure? Ha ha ha... You could understand if they just came out and said "screw disabled people - we don't care", but instead they give us this garbage about how it's as accessible as possible and it meets all the guidelines and they really do care ever so much. They are not claiming the right to 'do whatever the hell they want' - they are trying to kid people that this is as good as it gets and that it can't be any better. And that is just so far from the truth. Steve //* And here we have the overly emotional response that is exactly why we get such useless red blooded legislation. I know about being handicapped, but it doesn't color my logic as I can put the two aside, try it sometime. On 10/3/07, Mike at Green-Beast.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require > > all publications to include a braille copy > > Copyrighted publications in the US are copied to Braille for the most part > (with copyright holder's permission) by the Library of Congress. > > > I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose > > the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I > > can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical > > status. > > Mount Everest?! Please, get serious. If you're going to provide a > comparison, use something logical. Your comparison is akin to comparing an > apple to a hippopotamus. Not even close. > > Let's instead compare the brick-n-mortar Target stores with the web site. > Are you against the law that requires access to their stores, ramps, > parking > spots, wider doors, restroom aids, etc. Where is the line drawn? Why did > that law come to be? It is the result of the courts because businesses > didn't do it on their own and had to be pushed. The ADA spoke for a > minority. > > Businesses are notorious for doing the very least that they can until the > law tells them otherwise. Notorious! It's all about numbers, money, and > risk > management. I despise lawsuits, but this one is for the greater good, and > as > has been proven in the past, necessary. > > It's hard enough living with a disability without the ignorant, the > selfish, > or the greedy making life harder. Target spent millions making their > stores > accessible. To make the site accessible is so much less. So much easier > for > them. And yet, left to command themselves, they did nothing. In fact, once > asked to correct the issues the first time all they did was complain, try > to > justify their crappy site, and took little to no action. > > Choice? Cut off your legs and see how limited choice gets. The web is easy > access for lots of people who have certain difficulties, even with full > ADA > compliance in a physical location. My cousin was a quadriplegic and she > hardly went anywhere because it was a huge hassle doing anything. Give her > a > pointed stick, put it in her mouth, and place a computer in front of her, > though, and she was free to roam and happy as a lark. She literally > drooled > over the experience! I can't see how any business or site can justify the > failure to remove the barriers that would have blocked her access. > > I better stop now. > > Mike Cherim > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
