Slashdot Mirror
Legislation To Make Web Devices Accessible To Disabled Users
pgmrdlm writes "In an effort to make web devices accessible to the disabled, the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (H.R. 3101), submitted by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 348 to 23. The related Senate bill has been introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR). Quoting Representative Markey's website: 'We've moved from Braille to Broadcast, from Broadband to the Blackberry. We've moved from spelling letters in someone's palm to the Palm Pilot. And we must make all of these devices accessible.' The Washington Post coverage notes, 'Some broadcasters put videos on the Internet with captions, but not all. That can make inaccessible everything from the political videos that are now common on the Web to pop culture clips that turn viral.' As someone who has 20/200 vision with my glasses on, I completely agree that the web has not been kind to individuals with various disabilities. But due to the size of the web, and the large number of different devices that access it, is it even possible to legislate something of this nature? Or should we rely on education and peer pressure on the various manufacturers?"
I don't think Stephen Hawking regularly visits the pub around the corner from me, which is a listed building and had to spend tens of thousands of British Pounds putting in lifts and ramps, plus had multiple compliance inspections and certifications to handle. I don't think Stephen Hawkings regularly visited my old employer either, who had to spend thousands of British Pounds putting in a lift in its brand new office because they deigned to have an upper floor, while never having any employee or visitor who needed wheelchair access in the 8 years I worked there.
You can quote the exception to me all you want, and Hawking is just that, but the normal every day experience for these laws is a significant burden on certain persons and companies for little gain. At which point does it actually become acceptable to say "Look, you are disabled, you are different, and its not worth the cost of doing this - how about we look at it differently and stop trying to pretend that you have the same advantages in life that we non-disabled enjoy?".
I'm betting that last comment in the paragraph above is going to get me into hot water in this discussion...
How many disabled customers do you need through that door in order for it to make financial sense?
Maybe fewer than you'd think. When I was a student, the choral society would go out for a few drinks after rehearsal each week. There were usually 10-20 of us, including one or two in wheelchairs. One of the local pubs didn't have wheelchair access, so we'd avoid it. They were only excluding one customer, but they were losing the business of 10-20 others. The same thing happens with restaurants that don't have a vegetarian option. They might only be excluding one member of a group, but it means that the entire group will eat somewhere else.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well first of all text-to-speech is a lousy substitute for text, and if you don't believe that why don't you try it for a day.
But that point aside, let's imagine there's a device that can read text and display Braille. Then let's imagine that all the publishers decide to publish their e-books in a format that no Braille display can read (say for DRM purposes, or to make them unreadable on a competitor's device, or because their layout people are too damned lazy to learn and apply open standards).
That's the issue of accessibility.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
They might only be excluding one member of a group, but it means that the entire group will eat somewhere else.
... why would you care? They'll take care of it themselves. And if all of that is true, and they can't be bothered, then ... why would you care? They'll lose business to someone else, right?
... look! No government intrusion required! The market addressed the issue, and did so creatively and competitively. There have neve been so many choices, in that way. If enough people convincinly show a business owner that the math is in favor of expensively re-tooling around a very small, infrequent demographic, then they'll act. If the math doesn't work, so be it.
And so your point is that these business owners are simply too stupid to understand this? That it has never occurred to them that this might be an issue? And that only the wise Nanny State has the smarts to point this out?
Will the Wise Nanny State also help them with their business plan and accounting, and show them how they're better off losing a year's services of a couple of their staff so they can afford all of the legal, contractual, and business-interruption costs of remaking their establishment to accommodate a once-in-a-while customer that they'll have to now make sit around longer because they can't afford to pay as many staff for the year?
Here's an idea: If a business wants the public relations and warm-and-fuzzy benefits of giving up floor space, a second floor, and all sorts of other utility so that they can woo clients with wheelchairs, or movie-goers who are blind, etc., then let them decide it makes sense to do so. If you're right, and dozens of people will regularly skip a venue in favor of one that had re-made itself as friendly to every possible disability or lifestyle, and the lost revenue from losing that business actually matters to them and would pay for the added expenses
Your vegetable-eating example is especially spurious. There are all sorts of establishments that either cater exclusively to, or gladly make offerings to people who don't eat meat (or certain kinds of meat, or meat handled in certain ways, etc). This wasn't true decades ago. And
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.