[thelist] targeting effectively

[Ben Dyer]

On 10:40 AM 3/26/2002, PB&J said to me:
> > There is a serious problem in the web development community regarding the
> > callousness towards the disabled.
>
>There is? According to whom?
>
>Defining "serious problem" for starters might give this statement some
>factual and/or cognitive meaning.

Your e-mail is answer enough...

> >"It restricts what I can do," "it's more difficult to implement the bleeding
> >edge cool shit," these are the lamest, most selfish excuses I've ever
> heard in
> >my life.
>
>That may or may not be true (the lame excuse perspective you hold) but OTOH
>trying to make the WWW the ONE and ONLY area in the entire universe that is
>'equitable' and 'fair' and 'universally accessible' by anyone and everyone
>may be YOUR goal/aspiration but it certainly isn't a goal of each and
>everyone who puts up a web site.

<sarcasm>
So, it restricts what you do and it's more difficult to implement (not your
goals), so fuck em?
</sarcasm>

This is what you mean then, yes?

> > This is about access, people.  Providing access for *everyone*, not just
> > people who happen to have IE 5.5 and no visual, auditory, physical and
> > mental impairments.
>
>This world, this life, this universe is full of inequities and access is
>'limited' in many areas based on any number of factors. Because of visual
>impairment by some/few mean that everyone is to be regimented to reading
>books with 72 pt. type?

<sarcasm>
Well sucks to be blind or have low vision, so, oh well, guess I shouldn't
try to help them.
</sarcasm>

This is what you mean then, yes?

> >Does anyone ever bother for two seconds to think about how others might use
>what you create?
>
>Not in the least - in fact I don't even consider it for a single second.
>Would you ask this question to a sculptor? Illustrator? Auto designer?

Ah yes, of course, the internet is full of nothing but pretty pictures.  A
blind person would, of course, never need location information, contact
information, etc.

>This constant drone about how each and every web site should fulfill the
>needs, wants and aspirations of every single viewer with any moronic browser
>and/or system set-up is inane.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying wantonly ignoring accessibility standards
because they conflict with your pretty pictures.

>But it certainly does provide for interesting reading as some of the wannabe
>purists wring their hands over the 'ethics' of web site development or
>bemoan the fact that Netscape 2.x can't do this or that - pure comedy.

Yeah, who needs ethics, they just get in my way.

> > It is not difficult.
> > It is not hard.
> > It does not cost a fortune.
> > And, bottom line, if you don't give a crap about accessibility, it's
> > bigotry: a narrow-minded intolerance of others.
>
>Not really - personally I have nothing against handicapped people as
>individuals but as a organized group they're fairly annoying. I mean they
>already get all the really good parking spaces - so what's the beef?

That is singularly the most bigoted, intolerant sentence I've read in some
time.  I love when people prove my points merely by responding.  "I have
nothing against you, but because your disability prevents me from being
really lazy, I don't like you."

> > And excuse me for being a pissed-off hothead, but there's no excuse for
> > pure disregard for accessibility.
>
>In your opinion..............

And when is there a good excuse for pure disregard for accessibility?

>Thanks for sharing.

Likewise.

Tip coming.

--Ben


Ben Dyer, Senior Internet Developer, Imaginuity Interactive
http://www.imaginuity.com/

                I'm reading your e-mail right now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   http://members.evolt.org/OKolzig37/     http://www.evolt.org/