[thelist] Is this a list?

Jeff Howden jeff at jeffhowden.com
Sat Oct 1 19:50:37 CDT 2005


Shawn,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Shawn K. Quinn
> 
> > 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."
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

As eluded to by another member of this list in another thread, you *clearly*
have no grasp of how things work in the commercial web development world.
Until you do, you really don't have much to offer these types of
conversations other than your own utopian, unachievable brand of zealotry.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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, [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

There are all kinds of costs for user studies, development, consulting, UI,
etc. that come into play.  Sites are not accessible simply by being created.
More importantly, there are all sorts of design, marketing, personalization,
feature, and functional requirements that must be met while still attempting
to maintain as much accessibility as possible while keeping the budget as
low as possible and not making the user experience for your primary
audience(s) less usable or more time consuming.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] The cost comes in making them *inaccessible*, then
> more cost is run up making them accessible again.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I honestly can't think of any developer I know that purposely makes sites
they work on inaccessible.  That's counter to what we all know is the right
thing.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

So, because you can't comment on my specific remark you have to make this an
argument of absolutes?  Your suggestion is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve
any sort of response other than pointing and laughing.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Name *one*.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > If you run a Linux
> 
> GNU/Linux, see previous messages on the topic
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Yeah, Linux...

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

It's not zero, but clearly you don't understand that.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Some, yes.  Awareness has certainly been increased due to legislation.  That
doesn't meann that the legislation itself isn't flawed or even the
standards/guidelines a lot of the legislatin is basd on.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Either you need to get out more or you need to spend less time using
archive.org as your web proxy.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I'm not a fan of it either.  However, I think you're woefully underequipped
to judge the work on its artful merits.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] (who you did not attribute as having written the
> second-level quoted text in your original message, by
> the way) [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

So now you're the self-appointed reply-quoting police?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I'm saying, what Joel was referring to was not really a
> Web site.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

It is served by a web server, over HTTP, to a web browser.  It's a website.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I suppose that would depend on the nature of the content in those notes.  If
he's aware of the risk, assessed how much of a risk it is to him, and still
willing to live with it, then I'd say there's nothing negligent about it at
all.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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).
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

That's a fantastic approach.  That's exactly the sort of security I need for
my grocery lists.  Now, to teach my wife how to use SSH...

 [>] Jeff Howden
     jeff at jeffhowden.com
     http://jeffhowden.com/



More information about the thelist mailing list