[thelist] accessability guidelines - good/bad?

>My point is
>that accessibility is one goal -- a highly worthwhile goal -- that must be
>balanced against other values: namely, the right of people to make choices
>for themselves.

While I appreciate the general sentiment behind your statement, the problem
I see with it is that when an organization or company makes a choice not to
make a site accessible, they are not making the choice only for themselves,
but instead are making it for other people too. If it were a personal site
we were talking about, that might be different. As much as I don't like
government intrusion and regulation, the reality (as I see it) is that
accessibility would already be widespread if people felt responsible for it.

"My rights end where yours begin."

>In my opinion, there are few things -- no matter how
>honorable and praiseworthy they may be -- that take precedence over
>individual liberty -- no matter how foolishly it is exercised. That's why I
>argue for an active, voluntary effort: it encourages accessibility without
>riding roughshod over Constitutionally guaranteed rights (in the U.S., at
>least :).

And I would argue that our "Constitutionally guaranteed rights" were
written primarily to protect people, not corporations or other
non-individual bodies.

With respect,
Marlene