[thelist] Flash, usability, accessibility

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Sun Jun 9 22:31:00 CDT 2002


> From: Chris Kaminski <chris at setmajer.com>
[...]
> > this is correct, however, looking at caselaw from similar cases in
> > countries with similar laws, coupled with public opinion at the
> > time, as well as other factors, including how risky you want to be,
> > can give you a good idea of where things are headed...
>
> Sure, but don't expect me to grant your statements based on your 'good
> idea where things are headed' the same weight as those of a practicing
> lawyer.

hell, of course not... and i would never purport to be an expert to
my clients, either, but since i am aware of legislation that *might*
affect them in some way, it serves them to bring it up, frame it a
bit, and then let them seek appropriate legal counsel...

too bad it's often happened that their legal counsel has no idea
about any of this stuff, let alone how it applies to the web...

[...]
> Fine and well. There's a difference between advising someone to be
> cautious and arguing that if somoeone develops a Flash-only site, they
> put themselves and their client at risk of a lawsuit.

i've never made that argument... i have *always* argued that Flash,
in and of itself, is less accessible than HTML, and is far easier to
make completely inaccessible... that doesn't mean all implementations
are bad, inaccessible, or that HTML versions are always going to be
better...

> If the latter is the case, then it seems to me that text-heavy sites
> must also risk a lawsuit unless they provide audio and/or pictorial
> versions of their site for those suffering from learning disabilities.

this is a good point... somehow i suspect the impact on blind users
will receive greater weight than that of learning disabled users...
only time will tell...

> >> With programming, you compile the code and run it. If it works, you
> >> were correct. With Web design, you view it in the browser and have
> >> users test it. If it works, you were right. With U.S. law, you must
> >> go to court.
> >
> > i would disagree here... you don't have to go to court... you can,
> > as i say above, watch trends, interpret the laws, and ply the
> > risk...
>
> You're wrong. In the U.S., the constitution expressly charges the
> courts with interpreting the law. Any interpretation by anyone else is
> persuasive only inasmuch as it is a good prediction of what the courts
> would decide were they to hear the case.

the courts are only capable of interpreting the law if the case makes
it to court... too many cases are settled outside of court by lawyers
who make educated guesses on their chances of winning (and losing)...
 those settlements become a de facto ruling in the sense that later
pending cases look to it to weigh their own chances...

so, if a site i build has a suit filed against it by a blind user,
and my lawyer suggests i settle for a specific sum (in the litigious
U.S., that can easily be a huge sum), then it really doesn't matter
what the judge says since it never gets there, and i'm still out the
cash and have to remedy the problem with the site...

> Unless you're the IRS, when you're within the jurisdiction of a U.S.
> court you can watch, interpret and ply all you like, but the judge's
> (or jury's) decision will carry the day. Period.

again, unless your lawyers feel it's best to settle out of court, in
which case it really doesn't matter what the judge says, you still
can get hosed...

> > absolutely...  and context extends beyond that to things like public
> > opinion (did a blind man recently fall down a well that was
> > unmarked?) to international law from similar-enough countries (did
> > UK banks get successfully sued by blind users, did SOCOG have to
> > settle their olympic site fiasco and spend lots of $$?)
>
> None of which is terribly persuasive in a U.S. court.
[snip legal comparisons, because they address *why* they aren't
admissable (which is correct), which isn't really part of my
argument, since i'm discussing out-of-court cases]

no, but when my lawyer is deciding on settling, then it is...

> > so, no, i'm not really challenging your points, but i do believe
> > there is a lot more room for non-legal professionals to track and
> > qualify legal issues...
>
> Non-professionals can track and qualify whatever they like, but when
> conflicts arise between disparate non-professionals or between
> non-professionals and professionals I think it entirely appropriate to
> ask for the backgrounds of those involved in order to weigh the
> relative persuasiveness of their arguments.

yeah, but i wasn't challenging that, either...

--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg
ISBN: 1904151035





More information about the thelist mailing list