I just hope you don’t use your arguments from that 2000 reason article or your testimony from that same time.
They are wildly out of date reasons for not complying with accessibility requirements. Indeed, there is good reason to think that people that aren’t complying with those rules are actually doing themselves a huge disservice: search engine compatiability, mobile internet applications, and end user satisfaction.
I do think that the legal reasons might be less than satisfactory, but don’t cite the difficulty with complying with those really simple W3c recommendations. Since they’ve been incredibly easy to meet (at almost no cost and only benefit) for the better part of 5 years.
I wish mmm had provided a link to those “really simple” W3c recommendations that have been “incredibly easy to meet (at almost no cost and only benefit)” for five years. They must be a very different set of recommendations from the ones found here, which continue to describe as obligatory such practices as synchronized captioning for audio and video content, avoidance of JavaScript or applets unless a full alternative navigational structure is supplied, no signaling of information through color alone, and the many other edicts I found extraordinarily onerous in my earlier analysis. It is true that a revised and refined version is supposed to be forthcoming, but its point seems to be more to extend the scope of obligation under the guidelines than to roll it back.
Gotta go with Walter on this one… being in Web development, and looking at the majority of websites, meeting those guidelines appears to me to be very difficult and time-consuming (translation: EXPENSIVE), and most other website creators seem to agree (as they don’t follow them, either).
I just wonder why Target was the first target of this sort of lawsuit. Seems on odd choice.
3 Comments
I just hope you don’t use your arguments from that 2000 reason article or your testimony from that same time.
They are wildly out of date reasons for not complying with accessibility requirements. Indeed, there is good reason to think that people that aren’t complying with those rules are actually doing themselves a huge disservice: search engine compatiability, mobile internet applications, and end user satisfaction.
I do think that the legal reasons might be less than satisfactory, but don’t cite the difficulty with complying with those really simple W3c recommendations. Since they’ve been incredibly easy to meet (at almost no cost and only benefit) for the better part of 5 years.
I wish mmm had provided a link to those “really simple” W3c recommendations that have been “incredibly easy to meet (at almost no cost and only benefit)” for five years. They must be a very different set of recommendations from the ones found here, which continue to describe as obligatory such practices as synchronized captioning for audio and video content, avoidance of JavaScript or applets unless a full alternative navigational structure is supplied, no signaling of information through color alone, and the many other edicts I found extraordinarily onerous in my earlier analysis. It is true that a revised and refined version is supposed to be forthcoming, but its point seems to be more to extend the scope of obligation under the guidelines than to roll it back.
mmm,
Gotta go with Walter on this one… being in Web development, and looking at the majority of websites, meeting those guidelines appears to me to be very difficult and time-consuming (translation: EXPENSIVE), and most other website creators seem to agree (as they don’t follow them, either).
I just wonder why Target was the first target of this sort of lawsuit. Seems on odd choice.