Slashdot Mirror

The most important aspect of this issue is transparency.
Users should be aware of what's going on.

They do know what's going on. They're the ones doing the "going on".

In theory, it means one should not be able to enter a website without a disclaimer about the site and what it does.

The website authors/owner should be providing the info on automation and/or any info taken from the user and how it is used.it is the user's responsibility to decide if they wish to enter and as such, this means they must agree with the terms of the site.

That's a shit theory. You have the power to disable Images, disable Cookies, disable JavaScript, or even not render the HTML without first looking it over with a text editor. No one can make you enable those. I can't make you give me back a digital token. Do you control your own damn hardware or don't you? I can't be held responsible for users not knowing how to use a damn computer. Any information YOU SEND MY SERVER is sent by you, across the unencrypted internet and is being logged and tracked by the US government and some is being stored by your ISP, my ISP, and the parts I need to make stuff work are being stored on my end. 3rd party advertisements may appear in IFRAMES -- You don't have to render those. That's your fault if you do. Those sites may do who knows what with the DATA YOU SEND them. That sound like a good enough explanation? You want to read a thousand variations of this same generic bullishit on every damn website? I don't. I'd rather users learn how a damn computer works, and learn how to use your own damn PC. Even if you argue we should make folks read a manual and test them before they drive their cars, you can't blame the road or the manufacturer if some fools hops in and wrecks themselves.

Now, in the case of federal sites and/or governmental sites, this must be enforced. Basically they should be able to police themselves on this.

GREAT! You'll be able to check the transparency policy at the public hall of records. The Vogons would be Proud.

More than likely add this to Section 508 when it comes to the US Government.

Go to https://www.section508.gov/ --- If you didn't know what Section 508 was, YOU COULDN'T TELL from the home page of their own damn site. Try it and see. WTF? These are the folks you want in charge of Accessibility?! Whatever. Disabilities are sad. That's not my fault. If it's some service the government requires you to use, then yes, that's fine. However, not every site can be made accessible, not every site can ever afford to try. I do what I can within reason, but the whole world shouldn't have to suffer because something sad happened to some folks. For instance: I make games. Should I not make certain games because some people are blind or deaf or have no arms? Should musicians and sculptors and painters be restricted to only forms of art everyone can appreciate? I don't think so. "Where do we draw the line" -- Protip: you ever ask that damn question the answer is: Step Away From The Pen, you're not qualified.

This issue has been around for a long time when it comes to privacy, cookies use, etc.

Yep, and it's an education issue. Folks have all the power they need to control their computers, and thus control their cookies. ANYONE who actually gives a damn can block all cookies, or any web hosts, they can install a browser plugin to get fine grained control over what cookies are stored. Privacy? Anything you do in public is public, not private -- There's no privacy issue from walking around in a park. There are security cameras and camera phones everywhere. If folks want to use traffic cams to determine what to put on a digital bill board they should be able to. If you don't want to be recorded in public DON'T GO TO THE PARK. Most websites are on th

Section 508 only applies to federal departments and agencies. And it has right in the first paragraph: "...unless an undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency...".

So, it doesn't apply _at all_ to private entities creating websites, which seems to be largely what this change is about, and it also pretty much says that if it's too hard to implement, you don't have to. How is that a problem?

And for anyone else wondering wtf section 508 is:
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?fuseAction=1998Amend

The fade effect also blocks keyboard users from tabbing right in to enter their search query.

I hope GAO audits are properly enforcing the law http://www.section508.gov/ and blocking all U.S. Government contracts from procuring search services or search equipment from Google.

Changing the screen content with every keystroke will also be obnoxiously unusable for screen reader users.

Except they mentioned possible exceptions for small businesses...which to me, means they ARE considering forcing these regulations on NON-govt. websites.

There would be little point in debating whether to write disability accessibility regulations for govt websites considering that http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?ID=3&FuseAction=Content the 1998 Amendment to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act already requires govt websites (and non-web apps) to give disabled employees and members of the public access that is comparable to the access available to others.

So, clearly, the ENTIRE point of the DOJ considering whether to extend ADA is in order to apply it to non-govt websites.

I write websites for the government you insensitive clod. In this business I'm forced to make such concessions lest my efforts result in a lawsuit or my termination:

http://www.section508.gov/

n 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. Inaccessible technology interferes with an individual's ability to obtain and use information quickly and easily. Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. â 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others. It is recommended that you review the laws and regulations listed below to further your understanding about Section 508 and how you can support implementation.

Those of us who work in the field of disability regard this issue as a matter of Civil Rights. Once you understand that about us, it may help you understand why we are dogmatic about it.

The analogies people make to the build environment (e.g., ramps) are apt. If a designer does not incorporate the best practices that constitute electronic curb-cuts, there is nothing the best assistive technology (even at the helm of the most skilled end-user) can do to surmount the barrier.

Fortunately, things have matured enough that I no longer have to convince programmers to do the right thing, as the law and economics are on the correct side (this time). If you want to sell to the Federal government you need to make your stuff accessible.

I was sorry to see the question even asked, who wants to be blind? Why can't web design instruction include the basics of 508 compliance?

http://www.section508.gov/

Bullshit.

They've also not made it useable by people without arms, or by people without brains. So? Your point is what, exactly? That we are an evil society because we (the sighted) dare to actually use our eyes?

No, what you are proposing is a considerable change in the entire design. A highly visual touchscreen device isn't exactly going to be blind-friendly with one or two minor modifications.

I'll support any change that does not impact me or the other 99% of the people in any major negative way. If it costs another $5 to make a blind-friendly iPhone, fine with me. Well, as long as that doesn't mean $5 for the blind, $5 for the arm-less, $5 for the deaf, etc etc etc.

However, I do think there is some wisdom in going forward without looking out for the slowest one at every step. If only because otherwise you wouldn't get forward at all. I'm sure most of the nice technology that makes life easier for disabled people would have never been developed if it had been a requirement from day one

Bullshit.

They've also not made it useable by people without arms, or by people without brains. So? Your point is what, exactly? That we are an evil society because we (the sighted) dare to actually use our eyes?

No, what you are proposing is a considerable change in the entire design. A highly visual touchscreen device isn't exactly going to be blind-friendly with one or two minor modifications.

I'll support any change that does not impact me or the other 99% of the people in any major negative way. If it costs another $5 to make a blind-friendly iPhone, fine with me. Well, as long as that doesn't mean $5 for the blind, $5 for the arm-less, $5 for the deaf, etc etc etc.

However, I do think there is some wisdom in going forward without looking out for the slowest one at every step. If only because otherwise you wouldn't get forward at all. I'm sure most of the nice technology that makes life easier for disabled people would have never been developed if it had been a requirement from day one

I'd like to note that I've been pointing out this isn't forcing Windows on us, per se, but non-Windows systems do have substandard support, because there are NO supported desktop email clients. This problem could be solved with the addition of POP or IMAP access. I don't think the web client for Windows Live Mail is Section 508 complaint, either, and it needs to be. This, too, could be solved with the addition of POP or IMAP access.

What is the freaking difference between this and Hotmail or Gmail?

It's more about the freaking difference between this and our old system, which had POP and IMAP access. Also, GMail has POP access freely available. Actually, there really ISN'T a difference between this and Hotmail, literally, which has caused annoyance and confusion--when students go to the place they're supposed to log in to their WLM account, they'll be greeted with their Hotmail inboxes if they're logged in. In order to access their WLM account, they have to log out of their Hotmail, log back in, and lose the browser's ability to remember their log in so they don't have to type username@vandals.uidaho.edu every single time. The people who prefer web clients don't like that. The people who prefer their desktop mail client are ticked, because it doesn't work with them--not even on MS products like Outlook and Eudora. And what's worse, is they switched without realizing it because the new system is being promoted so heavily without any notice of the consequences. One day their mail client works, with its automatic checking for new mail and filters and ease and convenience. The next day, it's gone, and they can't switch back.

The only mail client we've gotten to work besides Windows Live Mail Desktop is Thunderbird, which has an extension. This is NOT ideal: it's basically a hack that could break at any moment. As far as I understand, our ITS won't even support WLMD. I think it's because of the ads and beta status.

Why the fuck should the website have to cater to every possible browser out there.

Because: "Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others."

If the information isn't accessible in Opera it sure as hell isn't in any disabled person's browser.

See http://www.section508.gov/ before your ignorance spreads.

It's my personal opinion that some things are just way easier to do with tables than CSS, and that's why people keep doing it. Am I right?

There are existing standards out there for 508 compliance.
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.h tm
http://www.section508.gov/

Government funded websites are required to follow these.
The problem is there isn't one set of standards.
There's different levels of compliance and nobody tells you how compliant to be.
It adds development time and testing time which amounts to lots of dollars.
I wouldn't even want to retrofit an existing site that was any too big.
There are tools to test your website but they are not free.

The requirement will be that all websites be renderable by a reader, if Target loses the suit (all that has happened so far is that a Target motion to dismiss the case was not granted). The judge also denied a preliminary injunction to require Target to make their website accessible immediately.
This is not trivial. There are programs that will read web pages and then pump them out through a voice synthesizer. The trouble is that the reader programs can't understand all HTML. I've forgotten the details of what fails, but I remember deciding I never wanted to work on a 508-compliant web site. 508 is a separate set of accessibility regulations for government websites. Information can't be just graphic, for example. On one hand, this is essentially adding another type of browser. But it is more complicated than ms vs. netscape, because you have to have a version of each page that doesn't use graphics.

"Now here is the problem: where is the responsibility? Is it also Target's responsibilty to pay for the blind's computer access equipment? Do they have to provide them transport to and from the store, since they can't drive on their own? Does there need to be a guy with a megaphone standing on every Target billboard declaring the contents of the sign in an audible format?"

Nice straw man. You, along with many others, are ignoring (wilfully?) the fact that Target has had to explicitly decide to make their site inaccessible. Take a look at their site as it is right now; they've chosen to use images for functional links and they have rarely, if ever, included an alt attribute in the image element where all they would have needed to do was bloody-well duplicate the text already in the image in the alt attribute. They have taken a medium that's fundamentally accessible (i.e. one which, by virtue of being text-based, can be intelligently parsed by a screenreader), and intentionally or ignorantly rendered it inaccessible.

Not only are they morons for apparently not understanding accessibility concerns, they must also be pretty dim-witted about e-commerce if they're too dense to provide textual equivalents for the UI elements required to make purchases.

"It's not immediately evident what the way of reconciling disability with this new medium should be"

What is evident is that you're not well-informed enough to be commenting on this event; check items 25 through 34 of the complaint and get back to us. Basic compliance with the WAI Guidelines or Section 508's guidelines (though not required by law for private industry) would likely have prevented this ever becoming an issue for Target--as would simply running the cart application's code through the w3c validator and correcting the resulting errors...

How do you define 'accessible'.

Section 508 is what the US Government has to define "accessible" for their own stuff. They have an entire website dedicated to helping application designers meet the requirements. Here it is http://www.section508.gov/. While IANAL, I would guess that if you followed these guidelines, then you would be able to say that you made a bona fide effort and would be immune to lawsuites. If you are designing for the government (either web-apps or compiled desktop apps), then you are already required to follow these requirements (it should be in the contract).

I see a lot of comments lambasting the lawsuit, but I have to say I don't see the problem.

Making a site 508 compliant is not really all that hard and it essentially consists of making sure your site validates as XHTML 1.0 (preferably 1.0 Strict) or even better, XHTML 1.1. Do that and you are about 90% of the way there. The rest consists of actually knowing html and using it correctly. Learn to use labels, fieldsets, and other html elements that have been largely ignored, despite being quite useful. Actually use the alt tags for images of consequence. In other words, if you've designed a site that complies with web standards, you have little to worry about with this lawsuit. If you haven't, then now you know why we have and push standards. Consider it a lesson learned and move forward a wiser developer.

The only downside to writing a site to be 508 compliant is that AJAX must be used carefully. Screen readers still don't detect client-side content changes well, so client-side dynamic content is slightly more limited, requiring a few more postbacks that you would normally use. But if you know what you are doing, those sorts of "intrusions" to your normal programming work are almost inconsequential. One caveat: Don't trust that Visual Studio 2005 and IIS will give you compliant code, even if they say they will. They won't.

You need to know a little something about real web development but the end your site will be better, cleaner, and more easily maintainable. I've done it. It's ain't that hard.

Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/

"How do you define 'accessible'?"

I'd point you to section508.gov, but ... it's inaccessible (i.e. "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.section508.gov"). Granted, Section 508 only legally applies to government agencies, but I would imagine (IANAL, of course) that compliance by commercial websites would be sufficient in cases like this.

WAI's WCAG might be a good place to start if you're concerned about whether your site is accessible. I'm also pretty sure there are Section 508 and WCAG validators out there.

A U.S. law requires that most software used by the U.S. Government be accessible. (http://www.section508.gov/ has the details.) A government-focused, open-source group may want to develop these capabilities, rather than expecting the disabled people themselves to do so.

...is what happens with al the people who actually need static content to particpate in this supposedly improved New Web Order.

Think about it from the perspective of a blind man. His screen reader presents the content to him. He makes a choice or otherwise interacts with it. AJAX jumps in and dynamically changes a bit in the middle of the page. Now...how does he know it was changed? Answer? He doesn't. He's excluded by default from this whole "Web 2.0" thing.

I'm not interested in bringing everyone's experience down to the lowest common denominator, but it's getting kinda bad for people who need 508 compliance just to be a part of this great new medium.

If it were some remote corner of the web, I'd keep my mouth shut, but as more sites move to AJAX content, they cease being 508 compliant. And this is a very recent phenomena. Until AJAX (for the most part), the web was essentially static. Changes to a page initiated a postback event and the screen reader was thus informed that a change had occured. Not so anymore.

This was sort brought to my attention recently as I am redoing a .com (they want it all ASP.NET 2.0-ified) for a fairly large corp and 508 compliance is a pretty big deal...and truthfully it should be. We talk about wheelchair ramps and other physical accomodations, and even computer accessibility, but AJAX is circumventing our current accessibility model.

We need to either drastically improve the screen reader technology or make ourselves more aware of the poeple we exclude with these "advances".

Disclaimer: Yes, I know that "Web 2.0" is not directly about AJAX but rather about collaboration, but AJAX is the preferred technology used to implement said collaboration.

Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/

I direct your attention to http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Con tent&ID=3 and may it help speed up the validation of your local election offices website ;-)

You didn't keep your eye on the ball. Its already a law in the US that all federal websites must be accessible to all persons. Including those with some form of disability (such as blindness, hearing impairment and so on.)

http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Con tent&ID=3

Why shouldn't blind people be able to access a website just as easily as a sighted person? In the UK its as good as law that a site be accessible to persons with sight or hearing disabilities. I personally have no problem with it at all. I think its a good thing.

Sites I develop personally, I always make sure I can navigate easily within Lynx or Links. If I can't use the site easily and comprehensively using either of those then I consider the site a failure and either rework the design or restart it from scratch. The benefits far outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion.

>Can a blind person install and configure windows, iis, SQL server, exchange, and active directory?

Except for the OS install, the answer is yes. All of the text and other elements in an ordinary window are automatically hooked into the standard OS-wide accessibility API. Screen readers like JAWS can then pull out the text without any problem.

>It seems to me that you have to draw the line someplace. If somebody wants to put forth the effort then great but honestly why don't we concentrate on getting the documentation so that a reasonably intelligent non disabled person can use it first.

There are a couple of little things like the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 that you might want to consider. Similar requirements exist for state goverments as well as other national and provincial governments across the world.

Without support for accessibility at least as good as other commercial OSes and software, OSS is going to have a harder time getting a foothold in goverment and industry. Not supporting accessibility is not an option.

>Then we can worry about the blind.

Given the rise in age-related diseases that cause vision degeneration, I sincerely hope those words never come back to haunt you.

Is no one here familiar with Section 508 (http://www.section508.gov)? It's the section of the Rehabilitation Act that requires federal agencies to make the their information systems accessible to people with disabilities, and is widely accepted as a default standard.

Google (like most private companies)

Private? Then what's GOOG? Oh, I guess you mean "private sector". Read on:

has no obligation to provide for handicapped users.

The U.S. Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act soon after the end of the American police action in Vietnam. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires private sector firms that have contracts with the United States Government to make their information technology services accessible to those with disabilities.

feel free to respond with the relevant e-mail address and the text of your e-mail.

I used this form to contact Google:

• Your email address: criticalhippo@(hidden)
• Your Google Account issue: I am trying to create an account and can't proceed past the "Create a Google Account" page.
• If you currently have a Google Account, please answer these questions: n/a
• Any additional information you can provide: (If you're seeing an error message, please include the text of that message. If you're having trouble at a specific URL, let us know.)
  "If you can read this, you do not have images enabled. Please enable images in order to proceed." Given that Google is celebrating Louis Braille's birthday, where is the alternative Google account creation form for users of braille terminals?

I myself do not have such a disability, but my stepmother has a friend who lost her sight, and I saw first-hand what it's like to use a screen reader.

Properly written AJAX isn't any less accessible than a plain old HTML form. Just make sure your AJAX events are triggered by actions that would normally result in a regular HTTP request (like clicking an anchor or submit button on a form). This way, there's nothing lost if Javascript is off. Everything else can follow the 508 guidelines just as strictly as a well-designed static page. So go ahead and pitch that AJAX app to NASA.

Section 508 surrenders?

It's called Section 508.

As a government agency, they are bound to the Section 508 accessibility requirements

FEMA isn't about accessibility to those who need it. They've already demonstrated that. Whatever happened to Section 508? The Slashdot blurb may be misleading, but FEMA may be in violation of the law. And if they are they should be held accountable. Write your congressperson. This about the 508 law:

n 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. Inaccessible technology interferes with an individual's ability to obtain and use information quickly and easily. Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. ' 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others.

OH GOD, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

Holy shit, man, get off your self-righteous high horse, take some fucking Midol, and read up on Section 508 compliance for government websites.

The fact that assistance to disabled people, who happen to choose to use the website to file, could possibly be hampered because of this is a serious problem despite how you apparently are to turn this into nerds furthering their holy wars.

FEMA is required by law to make their site accessable to people with disabilities. Demanding that the all visitors to the site must use IE6 with javascript is in direct violation of that law. It's not "impossible" is "lazy" and "irrresponsible".

And if you try to file a claim by phone they will only send the paper work to your address, and if you're filing because of Katrina, your home probably doesn't exist anymore. There's going be enough lawsuits due to this to bankrupt the whole agency.

The Americans with Disabilities Act applies to the private sector, local and state authorities, and Section 508 applies to federal agencies.

The Section 508 accessibility guidelines are a requirement for all U.S. government sites. I have helped to develop several .gov sites, and we take 508 compliance very seriously. I think the people responsible for www.fema.gov are about to get dragged over the coals, and rightly so. Making their website work in one *one* browser is the antithesis of accessibility.

Last I checked, the ADA didn't apply to websites.

Possibly. But section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act does apply to web sites of companies that sell products to the U.S. Government.

Here is a possible letter body that is less tendentious than that linked in the article.

--

Dear Copyright Office:

I am responding to your August 4 notice on Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims (37 CFR Part 202 [Docket No. RM 2005-9]), in which you ask whether potential preregistrants will unable or unwilling to use Internet Explorer 5.1 or higher with the new electronic form. I am one of an estimated 20% of browser users who does not use Internet Explorer.

I understand that the problem is that you will not be able to upgrade to Siebel 7.8 in time for the October 24 launch, and that Siebel 7.7 offers inadequate guarantees of multiple browser support. I understand that you plan to offer multiple browser support "in the future".

I commend your for developing an electronic form and allowing preregistration. However your announcement of this implementation limitation is worrisome for three reasons.

- You do not identify the source of the limitation. If the electronic form will be compliant with modern web standards (http://www.w3.org/) but will not have been fully tested with other browsers, that is a minor concern. In this case there is high likelihood that all modern browsers will work with the site. If on the other hand the electronic form will actively block other browsers or will contain IE specific code in violation of web standards, this is a larger concern.
- You do not explicitly address section 508 compliance, which as I understand it is a legal requirement upon the Copyright Office. http://www.section508.gov/ It is hard to understand how section 508 compliant website would be unusable with essentially any modern browser.
- You do not identify a time frame for removal of this limitation. If you will fix things in a few weeks, fewer users will be affected than if you will take a couple years.

I would start with the US government's recommendations for app development for people with disabilities. Most apps written for the Fed have to be section 508 compliant, which helps ensure that they'll work with screen readers. Keep in mind though that from my (limited) experience, 508 compliance is more than an art than a science - you know, you get something that's kinda sorta 508 compliant.
http://www.section508.gov/

If that's a public school site, they are not complying with Section 508 accessibility standards. It's a simple thing to do, and it's required by law for all federal government sites - requirements for other sites vary by state.

But even if GA doesn't require 508 compliance, there is absolutely no excuse in this day and age for building a site with content that's only accessible to a specific browser. I am amazed that people still pay good money for sites like this.

Should any of the credit card companies that want to use this type of technology hope to have the cards used by the federal government, they'll need to make sure that the card is 508 compliant http://www.section508.gov/ and that would take into account someone who could not speak.

And then there was section 508

'Section 508 requires that Federal agencies' electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities. The Center for Information Technology Accommodation (CITA), in the U.S. General Services Administration's Office of Governmentwide Policy, has been charged with the task of educating Federal employees and building the infrastructure necessary to support Section 508 implementation. Using this web site, Federal employees and the public can access resources for understanding and implementing the requirements of Section 508.'

Many companies that do business in the United States of America are subject to regulations that forbid them from discriminating against people with disabilities; companies that have significant contracts with the United States Government are subject to the stricter guidelines of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Anything that discriminates so flagrantly against people with vision or cognitive disabilities may get companies in trouble with the law.

As a person who designs user interfaces, I'd have to say that, while those usability guidelines are in fact dated, they're still quite useful as the general concept carries on. There's certain guidelines that, although related to older technology, are still relevant, much like iterative software development developed in the 1970s is still relevant today.

On another note, doesn't anyone find it ironic that the section508 government website doesn't even conform to the same accessibility guidelines it lists?

The US Federal government requires that IT-related stuff be Section 508 compliant, that is accessible. High-quality and cheap is also good :)

10 LET M$ = "Microsoft": REM Comment subject line has limited length

Fuck [people with vision disabilities]. They're a tiny minority.

Companies that adopt such policies are in violation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and they quickly lose their lucrative U.S. Government contracts. Even some companies with no U.S Government contracts may still be subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I can go faster in Word then the time it takes you to setup TeX.

If you're taking setup time into account, I can play along too. I put in a CD, unzip a LaTeX or distribution, and start LyX, and I'm in a WYSIWYM (what you see is what you mean) environment that's a hybrid between a text editor with TeX macros and a word processor. For commercial proprietary software, on the other hand, the time of installation includes the time it takes to flip burgers to earn money for a license. Your method can compete only if you choose OpenOffice.org Writer instead of Microsoft Word. Or did you count on having Microsoft Word in a bundle with the PC?

I'm really sick of people bitching about other people's websites.

Then vote out the legislators who created your jurisdiction's counterpart to section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which mandates web accessibility for businesses that do business with the United States Government.

Hint: never use a light font on a dark background.

What I want to know is why they did away with having the results be returned as an image.

Under certain conditions involving government contracts, American companies have to comply with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires the company's web site to be accessible to people with disabilities. Try retyping a web address from an image if you're blind.

Just send back emails coming from unknown senders and let them verify that their accounts actually exist, and, maybe, that they are humans.

According to this writeup, CAPTCHA tests 1. are patented in at least one important jurisdiction, and 2. discriminate against persons with disabilities in violation of anti-discrimination laws such as the so-called Section 508 in the USA.

Having standardized sizes matters to develop a universally usable site. It's not just a marketing ploy; in many cases, it's a legal requirement. Before you complain about how little it matters and demand that people be flexible, consider the following:

First, a site must be attractive. You may be a purist who still thinks that pretty pictures and good design isn't necessary if you present enough information, but you'd be wrong. Unfortunately, people still judge things by their looks. Even if you've presented your information in such a way as to make it extraordinarily easy to use and navigate, many people will never know that. Often, they'll see that your site looks like crap and figure your business is run the same way. Imagine yourself in the lobby of a company you're considering doing business with. Sure, the walls are sound and the furniture doesn't have holes in it. But if everything is cheap white plastic and particleboard, you're going to wonder if this company isn't just some fly-by-night operation. Thus, having an attractive site is important.

Second, the World Wide Web Consortium has very specific requirements for a page to be "usable". What happens if you don't do it there way? Well, you can be sued, for one thing. Also, your company will not be allowed to do business with the government, as you are most likely not in compliance with section 508, the same series of regulations that require wheelchair access, braille, and other accessibility assists for those with disabilities.

Third, you've got to make your site usable. Usability is not the same as accessibility. A 100% accessible site can be 99% unusable if it isn't clear what a user should do, how they should navigate, etc. Just because you've got braille on all of your stairways doesn't mean your users will know what floor to hit if you don't have a building directory somewhere, easy to find and easy to read. As such, it's important to make sure any idiot can navigate your site with ease. Do user testing. Record the sessions. Don't focus so much on what your users say, so much as what they do. I once had a user try to click on something that wasn't a link (but that could have been), then tell me he "should've known better"... but he didn't. (Naturally, it was a link an hour later.) ;-)

Once you've established that your site has to be cleanly and professionally designed, accessible and usable, you now have to make sure none of these elements breaks as you move from machine to machine, browser to browser, and platform to platform. You'll quickly notice that suddenly, you can't make your site scale as much as you want. You see that smoothly-flowing text on a 800x600 screen looks hopelessly cluttered on a 640x480 screen and ridiculously wide, yet short on a 1024x768 screen. You begin to develop visual guides that will work with lower monitor resolutions, yet still look professional on the larger screens. Your designers produce a style guide that begins to define specific column widths and template sizes. And you notice... that the web really isn't as scalable as you thought it was.

What the standard is matters because, if you want to be taken seriously or treated professionally, you had damn well make sure that your site is attractive, accessible, and usable. If not, you'll watch all of your competition march on by, taking your audience with it, regardless of whether you're out to make money or not. If your audience sees that someone else offers the same thing you do, but it's nicer and easier to use, they're going to go see that someone else, and that will be that. You had better take into account what resolutions your users have at their disposal, or your sites will cease to exist.