On 10/4/07, Chris Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Speaking of ' logical fallacy'.... > >
If you have an argument, make it. Don't assume that just because you think you're clever and right, that everyone else automatically will too. On 10/4/07, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, they are a business. They are trying to make money. Like all of us. All > of their decisions were conscious and based on the premise to make money: > use flash for marketing purposes. Save money by getting in a crappy web > development company. Save money by not targeting a select group of people. > > So what? Are you blaming them for running a business? We all have to make > these kind of decisions: how do we save money, who are the customer groups > we are trying to address... If you don't make those decisions you are a > crappy business person and your business won't exist for very long. > > Whether their decisions were right or wrong in our eyes is not the point. > They have got the right to make those decisions because they are a private > company. > Do they have that right? Are you sure? If they had a sign out front their store that said "No short people allowed" would you argue for their right to make that decision? If a blind person showed up to their store, and the staff decided to not give that person the right change, would you argue that it's the blind person's fault for being stupid enough to try to buy from target in the first place? > Would anybody go and sue the local grocery store for having an inaccessible > website? No. Because nobody would expect them to spend much time or money or > effort into building a website that works. So where do you draw the line? You draw it at the company that you do reasonably expect to have a website that works. A company that obviously has the resources to make their website accessable, but conciously decided to exclude a particular segment of the population out of ignorance. > a company earns millions of dollars then they should suddenly have to be > liable for making their websites accessible? But if the company only earns a > few thousands of dollars then it's all fine? If you have enough resources that making your website accessable to disabled is trivial, you should absolutely make that investment. To do otherwise is simply discrimination. To compare it to a business that obviously doesn't have those resources, and couldn't reasonably be expected to do so, you are making a flawed argument, with a flawed comparison. > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > 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] *******************************************************************
