[thelist] targeting effectively

[aardvark]

> From: Erik Mattheis <gozz at gozz.com>
>
> The people here that are insisting that it's wreckless and bad
> business to make a non accessible website (because of a disability or
> or missing browser features) probably just can't imagine what it's
> like doing independent contracting for small businesses. You hear a
> lot of stuff like: "We have $4000 for this project and this is what we
> want it to do."

been there, done that...

> It sounds like the solution some would suggest is to only do the
> accessible version that will work pretty much everywhere ... great if
> that decision is yours ... but independent contractors can't make that
> decision ... we're paid to do the tasks people hire us to do.

there is an opposite side of the argument that is equally valid...

as an independent contracter, you have to find other ways to stay
competitive... without things like errors-n-ommissions insurance, higher rates,
fear of lack of recourse against one man, etc, independent contracters have a
hard enough time...

but if that independent contracter can bring any extra ability to the table that
his corp competitors can't, he/she will have a distinct advantage...

i should know, my ability to do this kind of stuff allowed me to go from a one-
man gig, to a three-man gig, to a 20-man gig...

granted, there were other things that got me there, but
accessibility/standards/compatibility came up as a clear selling point...

> It's been suggested that I could be held liable for making an
> inaccessible website ... seems I'm covered by paragraph 8:
[...]

while that is well-worded (and potentially scary to prospects), it doesn't *truly*
protect you...

remember, someone doesn't have to *win* a case to cripple you...