Domain: contenu.nu
Stories and comments across the archive that link to contenu.nu.
Comments · 7
-
Re:This could backfire
In fact, the opposite seems to be true - the Olympics was successfully sued over their website being inaccessible, and so was Target. As a consequence, it seems, more and more business are finding reason to make a case for web accessibility - whether they consider themselves a target or not.
-
Re:IBM == Good code.
Usually IBM has got good code
It's worth noting that IBM built one of the most popular browsers for blind people, IBM Homepage Reader, which is currently based on Internet Explorer. Perhaps this is a move to help them switch to Firefox in the future?
I can't help but point out though, that in a landmark website accessibility case, SOCOG were fined A$20,000 for not having an accessible website for the Sydney Olympics. Guess who built their website? Yup, it was IBM
:). -
Re:Not really new, but interesting
Accessibility laws apply to governmental organizations. Your comment is entirely irrelevant in this discussion.
You don't know what you are talking about. Your comments are entirely unqualified in this discussion. SOCOG, for example, were fined $20,000 for producing an inaccessible site.
-
Re:I think it is good.
But once this standard is in place, I see these interests groups going around and sueing everyone they can get their hands on.
This is already happening.
- The RNIB is acting on behalf of people in the UK
- SOCOG was fined 20,000AUD in Australia for failing to provide an accessible website.
- MARTA lost a lawsuit under the ADA.
- AOL, Claire's, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have all settled when sued over the accessibility of their websites.
-
I've been reading Joe's articles for a while.You may also be interested in his article in The Atlantic , The King of Closed Captions
Also, the content on his content-related weblog The Nublog is pretty interesting.
He may be abrasive sometimes, but he usually gets it right. Moreso than Jakob Neilsen.
-
Re:I blame PHB's
1. Do it right.
To PHB's, #1 is too expensive.
Then you should be correcting that perception. It is _not_ more expensive to create an an accessible website. Even the Australian Courts took this view in MacGuire vs SOCOG.
Kludging and browser-specific markup hacks takes a lot more time than doing the job right the first time. -
Another analysis
I suppose I ought to point out my own analysis of the SOCOG accessibility decision, Reader's Guide to Sydney Olympics Accessibility Complaint.