[thelist] Is this a list?

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 00:02 -0700, Jeff Howden wrote:
> > From: Shawn K. Quinn
> > 
> > And rarely, if ever, does the Web site author/designer
> > know which sites these are.

> Actually, if the author/designer *doesn't* know, then they haven't done a
> good enough job determining the target audience. 

Making the Web site has nothing to do with determining the target
audience. The only "target audience" that matters, is "anyone who winds
up on the Web site that has a legitimate reason to visit."

> Moreover, some sites, there is simply zero benefit to offset the cost
> of making them accessible.

There's zero cost to making Web sites accessible, if done properly. The
cost comes in making them *inaccessible*, then more cost is run up
making them accessible again.

> Whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for
> any reason"??

You don't want people accessing your Web site? Shut off the server and
unplug the network cable. Far easier.

Dropping random users off your site (and yes, those users affected by
poor accessibility go far beyond the categories you usually think of) is
an incredibly poor choice. Such companies usually wind up turning the
page to Chapter 7 or 13 in relatively short order.

> If you run a Linux

GNU/Linux, see previous messages on the topic

> users forum and don't want anyone using Windows to access it.  Well,
> that's your perogative. 

Shooting yourself in the foot is your prerogative too, and not a good
method of ensuring a long life.

> If I sell high performance aftermarket car parts and I don't want to go
> to the extra expense

Namely, zero, unless you've spent more money to make it inaccessible and
then you're spending money to fix it.

> The only wrinkle in that is when the law stipulates a certain level of
> accessibility.

And why do you think such laws exist? Could it be that maybe this is an
issue that Web site creators and maintainers would not address on their
own in some cases?

> > Inaccessibility blows up in your face when you least
> > expect it. Those sites with stupid pixel font GIFs for
> > text may well not be readable or usable by the people
> > that made them after a decade of squinting.

> Especially considering the bulk of them are nearly a decade old. 

I think this remained in fashion for some as recently as a few months
ago.

> Besides, most of the "designers" doing it claim it's art.

There's nothing artful about being callous to the needs of others on the
World Wide Web.

> > That, however, isn't really a Web site, in fact, if I
> > read you right, it isn't something that even *should*
> > be visible to anyone that can stumble across your open
> > port 80, in fact, it should be accessible to exactly
> > one user (you) after passing HTTP authentication.
> > 
> > Keeping notes for yourself in HTML is one thing. Making
> > World Wide Web sites is another entirely.

> You know, it really doesn't matter if access is restricted by authentication
> or not.

I'm saying, what Joel (who you did not attribute as having written the
second-level quoted text in your original message, by the way) was
referring to was not really a Web site. I don't keep notes intended only
for my own consumption readable to the world. This, sooner or later,
costs the people like Joel doing it dearly, as it is grossly negligent
behavior.

For the record, I keep notes to myself in a subdirectory of my home
directory called "notes", accessible only via ssh. If it really is
intended only for my use, usually I will never even make it available
via HTTP, much less for public, unauthenticated HTTP access. If certain
people other need to know, it might be made available by user/password
authenticated HTTP or HTTPS (depending on content).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at speakeasy.net>