[thelist] Looking for simple way to get JS statistics from myvisitors.

[Robert Gormley]

Christian Heilmann wrote:

>I took this very bad taste example, because it signifies the same
>ignorance on the subject of accessibility and the web. You offer
>without caring about the consequences.
>  
>
One has an adverse consequence, the other has either zero consequence,
or a passive consequence. One does harm by its occurrence, the other
doesn't.

>Any time you offer some product or information it also comes with a
>responsibility to make sure the receiver gets it.
>  
>
No, you don't have any such responsibility. You make an offer, not enter
into any contract for delivery. It's like "take my pamphlet" on the
street. There is ZERO responsibility that the pamphlet is sensible, well
printed, even readable. It's the pamphlet givers decision if they want
to risk their message not getting through to a maximum audience because
of choices they've made, not a responsibility on their part.

>If I order a book, I assume it gets delivered, and I don't expect a
>message saying that they only deliver to even numbered postcodes after
>I chose to buy the book. I also don't expect to see it just to be told
>  
>
This is a horrible comparison. There is no transaction. You assume it
gets delivered because you PAID for it. What transaction is there here?
It's like a non English speaker going to a website, and 'expecting' that
the site will also have been translated into whatever language they have
available.

>in checkout after 5 steps that the book is not available. If I found
>great information  via a Search Engine or a link, I don't expect to
>have to alter my technical environment to reach it. It is even more
>frustrating if I don't even have the option to do so.
>
>What is an informed decision in the case of the web? When you put a
>web site out there you simply do not know who will use it. That is the
>big advantage of the web, an unlimited audience. If you want to
>restrict your audience, make your information only available to
>members who have to sign in.
>Who are we to decide what to give people and who to block out from the
> information?
>  
>
Who are we? The information owners. "Information wants to be free" is
the silliest phrase I've heard in years. It wants nothing. If you create
information, you have the /ability/, not /responsibility/ to disseminate
it as, when, how and indeed even /if/ you wish.

>This is what the issue at hand is about. When I open a library, I need
>to make sure that disabled people can reach it.
>
>  
>
When you open a library, do you also provide translations? For each and
every book, into every language, on demand? I don't know many libraries
that do. Where are the screams of anguish that they have a
"responsibility" to do this, or are "limiting their audiences".

>When I offer a service on the web, I cannot dictate anything lest I am
>willing to be seen (and sued) as someone who discriminates. I don't
>have to cater exclusively for the worst case scenario, but I can
>enhance the experience depending on what is available. Web content is
>not a luxury item, that is only available to a chosen few. It is as
>plain as that.
>  
>
Last I heard, requiring Javascript was not a grounds for discrimination.

Web content /is/ a luxury item, and /is/ only available to a chosen few.
If you have access to any form of computer, even today, you are the
member of a privileged elite. You want to argue about your right to
browse text-only, javascript-disabled? Sure, you have that perfect
right. Someone, who owes you no obligation, also has a right to
disseminate this information that they have as and how you wish. What
next, you decide you don't want to browse this content on the web? Do
you have a right to demand a bound paper version? After all, who is the
content creator to try to impose his arbitrary standards upon you?

Robert