The army hack into the electrical system, and shut down the power to a city.
A hospital in the city has a generator failure as a result and several babies and patients on life support die.
Has this violated the Geneva Convention rules on war?
The same thing applies if the drop a couple of bombs on the power plant as well though. And the military regularly bombs power plants during conflicts. The difference is that it's a lot easier to rebuild the computer network than it is to rebuild the actual power plant. cyber warfare is 'nicer' than conventional warfare.
I'd say our online privacy is about to get raped hard by TRUSTe and Real Networks. I don't trust TRUSTe as far as I can spit them. Just because they have labeled themselves as non-profit doesn't mean they don't need money. TRUSTe is still out to get sponsors and make enough money to pay its employees, because of this it would be a very bad idea for them to actually take action against a company who violated a policy. Most likely it will just be an extortion case, TRUSTe will quietly hint to Real Networks that if they are willing to cough up a couple hundred grand in 'donations' they can be TRUSTe approved by tommorow. Nothing will change....
You've never tried to lift a person in a wheelchair up even a few stairs have you? Even with the most lightweight chair, it's hard work, and VERY VERY scary for the disabled person, who never knows if he's going to be tipped out onto the floor.
Your neighbourhood would have to be very small to only include one disabled person.
I am 5'7" 120lbs, I have helped a 190lb person in a wheelchair up a flight of 9 (I think it was 9) steps at our church because the Ramp was closed for repairs. It wasn't that difficult for me, and it was jut a bit bumpy for her. If I can do it, then anyone can.
What if they want access to AOL's local content? AOL spends a fair chunk of money building content you can't get unless you're a subscriber.
You've reached a key issue now, WANT vs NEED. They do not NEED access to AOLs local content. They may WANT it, but they don't NEED it. Hence there is no reason to legislate that AOL rewrite their browser to be blind friendly.
You're just trying to make a point. You can't possibly really be that stupid.
People can, in general, learn multiple languages.
Blind people cannot, in general, learn to see.
The question is also, of course, one of *cost*. How much would it cost for the next version of AOL's installer to use text rather than pictures of text to describe what it's doing? Not a whole lot.
I really look forward to hearing the kind of things you'd say if you ever spent a week or two without the use of your eyes.
I was trying to make a point, and I made it. I can learn multiple languages, blind people can go to different web sites, purchase equipment which makes the site more accesible to them. But it is not the responsibility of the website owner/designer to make sure that the site is available to everyone anymore than it is the responsibility of someone to make sure I learn mandaran chinese at their expense so I can read their website.
Oh, and I spent several days without the use of my eyes after a rather nasty accident with a Cat. I've also spend months at a time without the use of my arms as I've broken each one multiple times. I became ambidextrous after smashing the hell out of my right wrist, so I know what it's like to be somewhat disabled. No where near what some people go through, but a little taste nonetheless.
Reading information. Dealing with morons like yourself. I'd have my companion describe the pictures to me, but since his command of english is severely lacking and he is colorblind, he isn't much help. And yes, Kentanun, he is a dog. I supposed I should have placed that in an ALT tag for you. I am always amazed when somebody realizes I'm blind (the sunglasses and dog aren't as much of a clue as one would suspect) and then talks louder and slower so that I can understand. A similar problem to this is some restaurant owners don't want my companion dog in the restaurant with me. They complain about the dog hair that they have to clean up. Well, shouldn't you be cleaning your restaurant anyway?
Excellent! A blind person. Now, do you, as a blind person, have any burning desire to see legislation passed forcing AOL to make their browser compliant to ADA standards? Does it somehow reduce your experience of the net for their browser to be the way it is? Would it not be much more useful for the blind to be contacting individual websites and companies to get the websites redesigned to better accomodate text to speech software and screen readers? This does NOT NEED legislation. Oh, and I don't give a shit if you're blind or not, competent is competent, and you are clearly competent.
Kintanon PS. It was interesting to see how the phonetic spelling of my name came out... I spell it K I N T A N O N. At least I know the program pronounced it correctly.
If there was only one disabled person in the world, then you might have a point. However, there is a growing % of the population who are disabled.
As for your silly walmart example. Reasonable accomidation includes having assistants assist you. A store doesn't have to have braille price stickers if they have an assistant who will read out the prices on request.
Soo... I don't have to put a wheelchair ramp in my business if I am willing to have someone help them up the stairs? What if there is only one disabled person in my neighborhood? Should I have to accomodate that one person who has the opportunity to shop at my store?
The spoken word came first, and you use it yourself, I bet. Forget this obsession with the primacy of visual text, it is nothing more than a weak paraphrasing of all the expressions, overtones and richness of the spoken word- to which a blind person might be considerably more sensitive than you are, making you the crippled one. Text is nothing. Written language is a cheap hack- anything expressible in it can be expressed with the spoken word, which was around first, and continues to see more use on a daily basis. _You_ are behaving like a loony. Perhaps you might consider not behaving that way.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ok, now that I'm finished laughing at you I'll point at that visual communication was around before speech. People communicated with gestures, crude pictures, etc... Before they could speak beyond grunts and groans (This is if you ascribe to the theory of the evolution of Man. In Creationism we were more or less as we are now.). The text that I am typing right this moment is a visual medium. It will be translated into 1's and 0's, sent across the net, and eventually be translated back into visual Text, or spoken word, or brail or what have you. BUT, it is not my responsibility to make sure that my text is readily translatable into anything.
Please reference posts 458-505 (chronologicaly) regarding some of my earlier posts. I wrote them while leaving from work and did not properly explain my positions. They make more sense now.
I think the more appropriate question is this: what the hell are ignorant and narrow-minded people doing on the net anyways!?!? Perhaps you could shed some light on this, Kintanon?
Hmmm... because I hold an opinion contrary to yours on the governments role in forcing compliance with the standards of an unconstitutional agency, and have a problem with blind people suing private businesses, that makes me ignorant and narrow-minded? Blind people are going to miss a LOT of the stuff that is on the web. They will have to learn to deal with that. You can not FORCE someone to write a 5 page description of a picture on their website simply so you can understand it. You can not force people not to use pictures of an kind on their website just so you can understand it. Once the government starts doing that, then you have moved from forcing the relatively small percentage of blind people to find an alternate means of obtaining the information, to forcing the company or individual to spend a lot of time and money to make something accesible to a small # of people.
No, "suicidal stupidity" is living in an ideologically-defined fantasy world the way you do.
Facts won't hurt you, really. Just try a few.
The only way to find out what reality is like is to go out and look. Idiots like you tortured Galileo because his facts didn't agree with their theories. Who laughed last?
*walks outside, looks up, watches the sun go from one horizon to the other, concludes that sun revolves around earth*
I'd say that just 'go(ing) out and look(ing)' isn't quite enough to determine reality when there are so many things that can not be determined without access to information and resources that the common person does not have.
If, indeed, the Braille representation is not part of the web, then neither is the set of pixels on my display, or the set of pixels on the display of the author.
The web is a digital medium; we translate it into whatever encodings we want, but it has no *native* form other than streams of bits you can't see.
You're just stuck because you have eyes, and you've always seen things, and you can't get your head around the idea that this is not the only way the world could work.
The Web is not visual; you are merely seeing a translation to your preferred medium.
Stop projecting your experience as if it's the "real" world. It's just your experience of that world
I wrote that post as I was leaving from work, I wrote it hastily and didn't explain what I was saying completely. MY statement was corrected around post 500 by myself. Please read it to understand what I THOUGHT I was saying.
O.K., I'll grant you that the web is a "visual" medium. And I'm sure you'll agree that this "visual" medium must be navigated. Do you agree with this? Assuming you said "yes", how do you navigate? Personally, I prefer the keyboard to the mouse. So, this stuff to help the blind also helps many who aren't overly fond of using a mouse. I call it a winning situation. It really comes down to writing half way decent HTML. A web page that can be viewed with any browser can most likely be easily navigated with a keyboard. Or now are you going to argue that people who use keyboards shouldn't use the web? Maybe the web should only be used accessable through WebTV? Maybe you think that applications shouldn't have scrollbars because everyone has a wheel mouse. Just how far are you willing to take your stupidity
ok, it looks Like I'm going to have to say this EVERY time some half assed idiot takes issue with my post. I did NOT say that I had any objection to people using proper HTML to make their sites blind friendly. I object to LEGISLATION which forces them to do so.
I am completely sick of this neo-lasse faire (sp)resurgence. It's people like you, who believe that inalienable rights are so far removed from your life that they don't exist, who are dragging the US down into the sea of Big Brother commercialism. You attack the righteous when they have been stepped on with weak put-offs like 'So what? You should have expected it. They can do whatever they damn well please!' Lest you forget, we in the US fought long, protracted wars to secure you those rights you are so willing to give up in the name of 'cheaper chips' and corporate handouts. The blind are taking their chance to secure rights for themselves. You have a right to view commercial webpages, Why the hell shouldn't they?
I have NO PROBLEMS with the blind being able to view commercial websites. However I do not believe that there is any need for legislation requiring said commercial sites to drasticly alter their content in order to be blind friendly, nor do I believe that there is any need for legislation to force AOL to make it's craptastic little browser blind friendly. There are alternatives to AOL, there are alternatives to most websites. Especially commercial ones.
If she is a qualified employee, you should build the ramp or make other accomodations that don't require her to go into that room. If it is too expensive to build the ramp, you can get assistance. If it is still too expensive you don't have to. You can get free technical assistance from the DOJ.
Ummm, they were going to build the Ramp, but it was going to take a month or so to have it built. The lady claimed that it was unacceptable and quit, and sued them for it.
To illustrate this, my favorite(?) quote here today is "What are blind people doing on the net anyway?"
Great. Definitely not the words of an intelligent, respectable human being. And definitely not what I am supposed to expect from Slashdot readers.
As the person who originally said 'What are blind people doing on the net anyways' I feel obligated to respond to this. I don't apologize for what I said, I feel that the blind have every right to do anything and everything they are capable of. I feel they have the right to develop any and all technology which will aid them in their quest to perform every possible task without hinderence. However this should not exted to forcing other people to do something to accomodate them. My reasoning goes as follows:
Person opens store, store has steps to get into the entrance.
Disabled person finds store, steps would force disabled person to shop elsewhere, have someone else purchase items, obtain aid in climbing the steps.
Disabled person calls lawyer demanding that store be forced to put in a ramp for them.
Now Store is being forced to close down, install ramp.
We move from forcing 1 individual to do something to forcing another individual to do something. This isn't right. It's just NOT right to force one set of people to do something simply to accomodate another set of people. Especially when the benefits are far outweighed by the cost. Can you imagine having to pay 5000$ to put in a wheelchair ramp, as well as getting it approved, getting permits, haveing it inspected, etc... just so ONE person can shop in your store?!
I'm short, there are a LOT of short people, and by short I mean 5'6, 5'7. Not REALLY short, but short. I'm going to sue Walmart because they have stuff on the top shelves of their store and I can't reach it. I'm being prevented from purchasing certain items I desire without assistance.
So the fact that I'm typing this in without looking means taht this message is 'non-visual' and therefore is NOT part of the web? Or does it become 'deperate from the we b in every way' once you read it with your VISUAL output device? - Theo pardon any typos, I wasn't lloking at the screen while I typed this, so I may have missed a couple, or over backspaceed.
Ok, let me explain what I THOUGHT I was saying since so many people seem to have thought I was saying something else. You type something in, it is translated from electrical pulses to 1's and 0's and on up the chain of information until it becomes text. There are simply more outlets for the 1's and 0's as visual representation of information because THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WHO CAN SEE! If the blind want to write their own AOL Browser I'm sure they can get permission to do so. But I can't see how forcing AOL to alter its browser is going to help them out all that much. AOL isn't the only ISP, nor do they have the only browser. This isn't going to help the blind at all in the long run. It's just going to let them hear all of those 'image, image, javascript, image, submit' pages using AOLs browser. Yay....
there is just a LITTLE differnce between the making the net usable to a blind person and making visual art enjoyable to a blind person. i'm guessing that they are using the standard in the americans with disibilities act, that is you must make resonable accomadation to the point where you don't change the nature of the job, eg. a ramp into a building is reasonable but making it so a blind person can drive a bus isn't, there is no way to make the change because to drive you NEED to see, you don't need to be able to walk w/o assistance for an office job. see the line? it isn't a bright line but it is there. back to the paintings vs. the web thing. a painting really can't be adequately translated into into a nonvisual medium, you could describe it but it loses a lot, you could make it raised but you lose color, it has to be visual to get the effect. now the web can be made nonvisual, as many people said before, lynx is a text browser that could be made into speach if the site is well designed. thats a resonable accomodation, making paintings non-visual isn't.
Soo..... If I want to make my website full of images, and I don't feel like putting alt tags on them, I can be sued for noncompliance with ADA regulations? Say it's a business site and not a personal one, can I be Sued now?
You're really pulling all the stops out on this one, aren't you? I bask in the glory of your ignorance.
Read the article. It tells you why they are filing suit. It's not a frivolous matter at all.
There is no legal precedent for this because all previous suits of this nature have been settled (read as: paid off) out of court. In this case a group of people have decided to stick it out to set a legal precedent.
"The law requires businesses and other organizations to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities in order to provide them with access equal to that enjoyed by others."
Look, these people are complaining because they can't see the buttons on AOLs browser and AOL hasn't made provisions to allow their readers to translate it into brail/sound. I don't see how AOLs browser has anything to do with websites in general. And this ONLY makes sense if AOL also supports every language on earth to allow people of all nationalities to enjoy their service. They have no call to sue AOL because their browser is noncompliant with ADA standards. They should just use a browser that is. They are going to have to find someone else to sue in order to change the way Websites are designed.
Get this straight, this IS NOT a tort suit. Money has nothing to do with this. So all of you bozo's who want to pull the lawyer card can just go jump in a pile of AOL CD's! This is simply a suit to force a company to comply with a law. No money! Debate if the law is good or bad all you want; but don't whine about money because this has nothing to do with it! The Spanish Inquisiton was more tollerant then some of the folks here. I put this question to all of you, why SHOULDN'T the blind have access to AOL? I doubt I will get an intelligent answer to this question. I'll sum up the standard answers from/.'s on this right here: 1) Because 2) They suck! 3) They use MS. 4) They use AOL! [DUH] 5) They should have used Linux. 6) Government sucks! 7) You suck!
There is no one here saying that the blind should NOT have access to the WEB. However, no one should be required to change the way their website works simply so the blind people can get every nuance of the page, nor should AOL be required to alter their browser to accomodate the blind. There are plenty of better alternate ISPS that they can use with Lynx or anything else. They are not being kept from enjoying the web simply because AOLs browser isn't friendly to them. They are being prevented from enjoying the web because they are ignorant of anything outside of AOL. I'd say it would be a good thing if they all became a little more educated and picked up a decent ISP. This does not warrant a lawsuit, nor legeslation.
It is about the AOL service. The whole GUI client they have to connect to AOL. This is what is inaccessbile not the website
And to this end I say, is there any language that AOL's browser does not come in? Because if so I'm going to contact some lawyers and find some people who speak/read nothing but that language and sue the hell out of AOL.
Last time I checked, the web was a bunch of electrons going over some wires. You can't SEE, HEAR, TASTE, SMELL or TOUCH those electrons. Oh sure, you can get some software to translate it into text or sound or braille, but it's inherently electrons.
Of course. I agree completely with that. But there are a lot more people who had the desire to translate those electrons into text than into anything else. No one is stopping anyone from creating things to aid the Blind in using the Web, there are a lot of things out there already. But forcing people to meet some random requirements set by an agency full of unelected officials with nothing better to do.
Text isn't visual. I sent email to a person I know. I saw the email, when I was sending it, because I used a visual editor. She never saw my email, even though she received it and wrote back. She felt my email as a series of dots on her fingertips.
Text is *not* the same as visual content.
Why do you think the web is visual? Not because *it* is visual. Because *you* are.
Don't let your experience blind you to the way the world works when you aren't looking.
Incorrect. Your VISUAL media which you created was translated into physical media in the form of brail by a program at the other end of the connection. Once it had become brail and physical it was no longer part of the Web, was it? It was then, at that moment, a piece of physical media which she had in her hands. It was seperate from the Web in every way. The Web is visual. But it can be translated to the physical or audible media.
Hmm, so I suppose those using a text only browser like lynx are not using the web since it "IS visual media". With an alt tag behind an image that is also a link, a reading application could read the tag describing the link, letting the blind user know whether or not she would like to follow it. Without any textual information, the link isn't too useful, unless the reader looks at the underlying html source.
I agree that using a graphical browser like NN or Opera makes for a more rewarding web experience. But it isn't the only to way to surf.
Oh wait, last time I checked TEXT was VISUAL. You can not FEEL the web, you can not HEAR it, or Taste it, or smell it. You can SEE it, or someone/thing can see it and translate it into sound for you. But it is inherently visual.
The complaint with AOL seems to be that they offer no text equivalent for their images/icons (no 'alt' tags), so that a reader is incapable of 'rendering' them for the blind!
And this warrants a lawsuit HOW?! It's AOL's choice as to which consumers they support. Do they have a spanish version browser? Hungarian? Mandaran Chinese? Can I sue them because I can't afford AOL's rates and that is denying me the ability to view their cheesy icons?
Slashdot Mirror
The army hack into the electrical system, and shut down the power to a city.
A hospital in the city has a generator failure as a result and several babies and patients on life support die.
Has this violated the Geneva Convention rules on war?
The same thing applies if the drop a couple of bombs on the power plant as well though. And the military regularly bombs power plants during conflicts. The difference is that it's a lot easier to rebuild the computer network than it is to rebuild the actual power plant. cyber warfare is 'nicer' than conventional warfare.
Kintanon
I'd say our online privacy is about to get raped hard by TRUSTe and Real Networks. I don't trust TRUSTe as far as I can spit them. Just because they have labeled themselves as non-profit doesn't mean they don't need money. TRUSTe is still out to get sponsors and make enough money to pay its employees, because of this it would be a very bad idea for them to actually take action against a company who violated a policy. Most likely it will just be an extortion case, TRUSTe will quietly hint to Real Networks that if they are willing to cough up a couple hundred grand in 'donations' they can be TRUSTe approved by tommorow. Nothing will change....
Kintanon
You've never tried to lift a person in a wheelchair up even a few stairs have you?
Even with the most lightweight chair, it's hard work, and VERY VERY scary for the disabled person, who never knows if he's going to be tipped out onto the floor.
Your neighbourhood would have to be very small to only include one disabled person.
I am 5'7" 120lbs, I have helped a 190lb person in a wheelchair up a flight of 9 (I think it was 9) steps at our church because the Ramp was closed for repairs. It wasn't that difficult for me, and it was jut a bit bumpy for her. If I can do it, then anyone can.
Kintanon
What if they want access to AOL's local content? AOL spends a fair chunk of money building content you can't get unless you're a subscriber.
You've reached a key issue now, WANT vs NEED. They do not NEED access to AOLs local content. They may WANT it, but they don't NEED it. Hence there is no reason to legislate that AOL rewrite their browser to be blind friendly.
Kintanon
You're just trying to make a point. You can't possibly really be that stupid.
People can, in general, learn multiple languages.
Blind people cannot, in general, learn to see.
The question is also, of course, one of *cost*. How much would it cost for the next version of AOL's installer to use text rather than pictures of text to describe what it's doing? Not a whole lot.
I really look forward to hearing the kind of things you'd say if you ever spent a week or two without the use of your eyes.
I was trying to make a point, and I made it. I can learn multiple languages, blind people can go to different web sites, purchase equipment which makes the site more accesible to them. But it is not the responsibility of the website owner/designer to make sure that the site is available to everyone anymore than it is the responsibility of someone to make sure I learn mandaran chinese at their expense so I can read their website.
Oh, and I spent several days without the use of my eyes after a rather nasty accident with a Cat. I've also spend months at a time without the use of my arms as I've broken each one multiple times.
I became ambidextrous after smashing the hell out of my right wrist, so I know what it's like to be somewhat disabled. No where near what some people go through, but a little taste nonetheless.
Kintanon
Reading information. Dealing with morons like yourself. I'd have my companion describe the pictures to me, but since his command of english is severely lacking and he is colorblind, he isn't much help. And yes, Kentanun, he is a dog. I supposed I should have placed that in an ALT tag for you. I am always amazed when somebody realizes I'm blind (the sunglasses and dog aren't as much of a clue as one would suspect) and then talks louder and slower so that I can understand. A similar problem to this is some restaurant owners don't want my companion dog in the restaurant with me. They complain about the dog hair that they have to clean up. Well, shouldn't you be cleaning your restaurant anyway?
Excellent! A blind person. Now, do you, as a blind person, have any burning desire to see legislation passed forcing AOL to make their browser compliant to ADA standards? Does it somehow reduce your experience of the net for their browser to be the way it is? Would it not be much more useful for the blind to be contacting individual websites and companies to get the websites redesigned to better accomodate text to speech software and screen readers? This does NOT NEED legislation. Oh, and I don't give a shit if you're blind or not, competent is competent, and you are clearly competent.
Kintanon
PS. It was interesting to see how the phonetic spelling of my name came out... I spell it K I N T A N O N. At least I know the program pronounced it correctly.
If there was only one disabled person in the world, then you might have a point. However, there is a growing % of the population who are disabled.
As for your silly walmart example. Reasonable accomidation includes having assistants assist you. A store doesn't have to have braille price stickers if they have an assistant who will read out the prices on request.
Soo... I don't have to put a wheelchair ramp in my business if I am willing to have someone help them up the stairs? What if there is only one disabled person in my neighborhood? Should I have to accomodate that one person who has the opportunity to shop at my store?
Kintanon
The spoken word came first, and you use it yourself, I bet. Forget this obsession with the primacy of visual text, it is nothing more than a weak paraphrasing of all the expressions, overtones and richness of the spoken word- to which a blind person might be considerably more sensitive than you are, making you the crippled one.
Text is nothing. Written language is a cheap hack- anything expressible in it can be expressed with the spoken word, which was around first, and continues to see more use on a daily basis.
_You_ are behaving like a loony. Perhaps you might consider not behaving that way.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ok, now that I'm finished laughing at you I'll point at that visual communication was around before speech. People communicated with gestures, crude pictures, etc... Before they could speak beyond grunts and groans (This is if you ascribe to the theory of the evolution of Man. In Creationism we were more or less as we are now.). The text that I am typing right this moment is a visual medium. It will be translated into 1's and 0's, sent across the net, and eventually be translated back into visual Text, or spoken word, or brail or what have you. BUT, it is not my responsibility to make sure that my text is readily translatable into anything.
Kintanon
Please reference posts 458-505 (chronologicaly) regarding some of my earlier posts. I wrote them while leaving from work and did not properly explain my positions. They make more sense now.
Kintanon
I think the more appropriate question is this: what the hell are ignorant and narrow-minded people doing on the net anyways!?!? Perhaps you could shed some light on this, Kintanon?
Hmmm... because I hold an opinion contrary to yours on the governments role in forcing compliance with the standards of an unconstitutional agency, and have a problem with blind people suing private businesses, that makes me ignorant and narrow-minded? Blind people are going to miss a LOT of the stuff that is on the web. They will have to learn to deal with that. You can not FORCE someone to write a 5 page description of a picture on their website simply so you can understand it. You can not force people not to use pictures of an kind on their website just so you can understand it. Once the government starts doing that, then you have moved from forcing the relatively small percentage of blind people to find an alternate means of obtaining the information, to forcing the company or individual to spend a lot of time and money to make something accesible to a small # of people.
Kintanon
No, "suicidal stupidity" is living in an ideologically-defined fantasy world the way you do.
Facts won't hurt you, really. Just try a few.
The only way to find out what reality is like is to go out and look. Idiots like you tortured Galileo because his facts didn't agree with their theories. Who laughed last?
*walks outside, looks up, watches the sun go from one horizon to the other, concludes that sun revolves around earth*
I'd say that just 'go(ing) out and look(ing)' isn't quite enough to determine reality when there are so many things that can not be determined without access to information and resources that the common person does not have.
Kintanon
You're just not thinking.
GET OVER THE EYES FOR A MOMENT.
If, indeed, the Braille representation is not part of the web, then neither is the set of pixels on my display, or the set of pixels on the display of the author.
The web is a digital medium; we translate it into whatever encodings we want, but it has no *native* form other than streams of bits you can't see.
You're just stuck because you have eyes, and you've always seen things, and you can't get your head around the idea that this is not the only way the world could work.
The Web is not visual; you are merely seeing a translation to your preferred medium.
Stop projecting your experience as if it's the "real" world. It's just your experience of that world
I wrote that post as I was leaving from work, I wrote it hastily and didn't explain what I was saying completely. MY statement was corrected around post 500 by myself. Please read it to understand what I THOUGHT I was saying.
Kintanon
O.K., I'll grant you that the web is a "visual" medium. And I'm sure you'll agree that this "visual" medium must be navigated. Do you agree with this? Assuming you said "yes", how do you navigate? Personally, I prefer the keyboard to the mouse. So, this stuff to help the blind also helps many who aren't overly fond of using a mouse. I call it a winning situation. It really comes down to writing half way decent HTML. A web page that can be viewed with any browser can most likely be easily navigated with a keyboard. Or now are you going to argue that people who use keyboards shouldn't use the web? Maybe the web should only be used accessable through WebTV?
Maybe you think that applications shouldn't have scrollbars because everyone has a wheel mouse. Just how far are you willing to take your stupidity
ok, it looks Like I'm going to have to say this EVERY time some half assed idiot takes issue with my post. I did NOT say that I had any objection to people using proper HTML to make their sites blind friendly. I object to LEGISLATION which forces them to do so.
Kintanon
I am completely sick of this neo-lasse faire (sp)resurgence. It's people like you, who believe that inalienable rights are so far removed from your life that they don't exist, who are dragging the US down into the sea of Big Brother commercialism. You attack the righteous when they have been stepped on with weak put-offs like 'So what? You should have expected it. They can do whatever they damn well please!' Lest you forget, we in the US fought long, protracted wars to secure you those rights you are so willing to give up in the name of 'cheaper chips' and corporate handouts.
The blind are taking their chance to secure rights for themselves. You have a right to view commercial webpages, Why the hell shouldn't they?
I have NO PROBLEMS with the blind being able to view commercial websites. However I do not believe that there is any need for legislation requiring said commercial sites to drasticly alter their content in order to be blind friendly, nor do I believe that there is any need for legislation to force AOL to make it's craptastic little browser blind friendly. There are alternatives to AOL, there are alternatives to most websites. Especially commercial ones.
Kintanon
If she is a qualified employee, you should build the ramp or make other accomodations that don't require her to go into that room. If it is too expensive to build the ramp, you can get assistance. If it is still too expensive you don't have to. You can get free technical assistance from the DOJ.
Ummm, they were going to build the Ramp, but it was going to take a month or so to have it built. The lady claimed that it was unacceptable and quit, and sued them for it.
Kintanon
To illustrate this, my favorite(?) quote here today is "What are blind people doing on the net anyway?"
Great. Definitely not the words of an intelligent, respectable human being. And definitely not what I am supposed to expect from Slashdot readers.
As the person who originally said 'What are blind people doing on the net anyways' I feel obligated to respond to this. I don't apologize for what I said, I feel that the blind have every right to do anything and everything they are capable of. I feel they have the right to develop any and all technology which will aid them in their quest to perform every possible task without hinderence. However this should not exted to forcing other people to do something to accomodate them. My reasoning goes as follows:
Person opens store, store has steps to get into the entrance.
Disabled person finds store, steps would force disabled person to shop elsewhere, have someone else purchase items, obtain aid in climbing the steps.
Disabled person calls lawyer demanding that store be forced to put in a ramp for them.
Now Store is being forced to close down, install ramp.
We move from forcing 1 individual to do something to forcing another individual to do something. This isn't right. It's just NOT right to force one set of people to do something simply to accomodate another set of people. Especially when the benefits are far outweighed by the cost. Can you imagine having to pay 5000$ to put in a wheelchair ramp, as well as getting it approved, getting permits, haveing it inspected, etc... just so ONE person can shop in your store?!
I'm short, there are a LOT of short people, and by short I mean 5'6, 5'7. Not REALLY short, but short. I'm going to sue Walmart because they have stuff on the top shelves of their store and I can't reach it. I'm being prevented from purchasing certain items I desire without assistance.
Kintanon
So the fact that I'm typing this in without looking means taht this message is 'non-visual' and therefore is NOT part of the web? Or does it become 'deperate from the we b in every way' once you read it with your VISUAL output device? - Theo pardon any typos, I wasn't lloking at the screen while I typed this, so I may have missed a couple, or over backspaceed.
Ok, let me explain what I THOUGHT I was saying since so many people seem to have thought I was saying something else. You type something in, it is translated from electrical pulses to 1's and 0's and on up the chain of information until it becomes text. There are simply more outlets for the 1's and 0's as visual representation of information because THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WHO CAN SEE! If the blind want to write their own AOL Browser I'm sure they can get permission to do so. But I can't see how forcing AOL to alter its browser is going to help them out all that much. AOL isn't the only ISP, nor do they have the only browser. This isn't going to help the blind at all in the long run. It's just going to let them hear all of those 'image, image, javascript, image, submit' pages using AOLs browser. Yay....
Kintanon
there is just a LITTLE differnce between the making the net usable to a blind person and making visual art enjoyable to a blind person. i'm guessing that they are using the standard in the americans with disibilities act, that is you must make resonable accomadation to the point where you don't change the nature of the job, eg. a ramp into a building is reasonable but making it so a blind person can drive a bus isn't, there is no way to make the change because to drive you NEED to see, you don't need to be able to walk w/o assistance for an office job. see the line? it isn't a bright line but it is there. back to the paintings vs. the web thing. a painting really can't be adequately translated into into a nonvisual medium, you could describe it but it loses a lot, you could make it raised but you lose color, it has to be visual to get the effect. now the web can be made nonvisual, as many people said before, lynx is a text browser that could be made into speach if the site is well designed. thats a resonable accomodation, making paintings non-visual isn't.
Soo..... If I want to make my website full of images, and I don't feel like putting alt tags on them, I can be sued for noncompliance with ADA regulations? Say it's a business site and not a personal one, can I be Sued now?
Kintanon
You're really pulling all the stops out on this one, aren't you? I bask in the glory of your ignorance.
Read the article. It tells you why they are filing suit. It's not a frivolous matter at all.
There is no legal precedent for this because all previous suits of this nature have been settled (read as: paid off) out of court. In this case a group of people have decided to stick it out to set a legal precedent.
"The law requires businesses and other organizations to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities in order to provide them with access equal to that enjoyed by others."
Look, these people are complaining because they can't see the buttons on AOLs browser and AOL hasn't made provisions to allow their readers to translate it into brail/sound. I don't see how AOLs browser has anything to do with websites in general. And this ONLY makes sense if AOL also supports every language on earth to allow people of all nationalities to enjoy their service.
They have no call to sue AOL because their browser is noncompliant with ADA standards. They should just use a browser that is. They are going to have to find someone else to sue in order to change the way Websites are designed.
Kintanon
Get this straight, this IS NOT a tort suit. Money has nothing to do with this. So all of you bozo's who want to pull the lawyer card can just go jump in a pile of AOL CD's! This is simply a suit to force a company to comply with a law. No money! Debate if the law is good or bad all you want; but don't whine about money because this has nothing to do with it! The Spanish Inquisiton was more tollerant then some of the folks here. I put this question to all of you, why SHOULDN'T the blind have access to AOL? I doubt I will get an intelligent answer to this question. I'll sum up the standard answers from /.'s on this right here:
1) Because
2) They suck!
3) They use MS.
4) They use AOL! [DUH]
5) They should have used Linux.
6) Government sucks!
7) You suck!
There is no one here saying that the blind should NOT have access to the WEB. However, no one should be required to change the way their website works simply so the blind people can get every nuance of the page, nor should AOL be required to alter their browser to accomodate the blind. There are plenty of better alternate ISPS that they can use with Lynx or anything else. They are not being kept from enjoying the web simply because AOLs browser isn't friendly to them. They are being prevented from enjoying the web because they are ignorant of anything outside of AOL. I'd say it would be a good thing if they all became a little more educated and picked up a decent ISP. This does not warrant a lawsuit, nor legeslation.
Kintanon
It is about the AOL service. The whole GUI client they have to connect to AOL. This is what is inaccessbile not the website
And to this end I say, is there any language that AOL's browser does not come in? Because if so I'm going to contact some lawyers and find some people who speak/read nothing but that language and sue the hell out of AOL.
Kintanon
Last time I checked, the web was a bunch of electrons going over some wires. You can't SEE, HEAR, TASTE, SMELL or TOUCH those electrons. Oh sure, you can get some software to translate it into text or sound or braille, but it's inherently electrons.
Of course. I agree completely with that. But there are a lot more people who had the desire to translate those electrons into text than into anything else. No one is stopping anyone from creating things to aid the Blind in using the Web, there are a lot of things out there already. But forcing people to meet some random requirements set by an agency full of unelected officials with nothing better to do.
Kintanon
Text isn't visual. I sent email to a person I know. I saw the email, when I was sending it, because I used a visual editor. She never saw my email, even though she received it and wrote back. She felt my email as a series of dots on her fingertips.
Text is *not* the same as visual content.
Why do you think the web is visual? Not because *it* is visual. Because *you* are.
Don't let your experience blind you to the way the world works when you aren't looking.
Incorrect. Your VISUAL media which you created was translated into physical media in the form of brail by a program at the other end of the connection. Once it had become brail and physical it was no longer part of the Web, was it? It was then, at that moment, a piece of physical media which she had in her hands. It was seperate from the Web in every way. The Web is visual. But it can be translated to the physical or audible media.
Kintanon
Hmm, so I suppose those using a text only browser like lynx are not using the web since it "IS visual media". With an alt tag behind an image that is also a link, a reading application could read the tag describing the link, letting the blind user know whether or not she would like to follow it. Without any textual information, the link isn't too useful, unless the reader looks at the underlying html source.
I agree that using a graphical browser like NN or Opera makes for a more rewarding web experience. But it isn't the only to way to surf.
Oh wait, last time I checked TEXT was VISUAL. You can not FEEL the web, you can not HEAR it, or Taste it, or smell it. You can SEE it, or someone/thing can see it and translate it into sound for you. But it is inherently visual.
Kintanon
The complaint with AOL seems to be that they offer no text equivalent for their images/icons (no 'alt' tags), so that a reader is incapable of 'rendering' them for the blind!
And this warrants a lawsuit HOW?! It's AOL's choice as to which consumers they support. Do they have a spanish version browser? Hungarian? Mandaran Chinese? Can I sue them because I can't afford AOL's rates and that is denying me the ability to view their cheesy icons?
Kintanon