[access-uk] Re: BBC Iplayer
- From: "Rays Home" <rays-home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:17:01 +0100
Agreed Colin. It is a very bad example - as if things weren't hard enough with
website developers anyway.
Another site I want to take issue with is Silk Sound books, who have well read
downloadable books for the same price you'd pay for a paper back in the shops.
The website has a an announcement you cannot shut up which of course interferes
with most using a soundcard for their speech. They've also started
distributing their newsletter in graphical image form, which is no use to me.
There just seems so much damned crass indifference to our needs, and often on
sites like Silk Sound Books who you would have thought would have VI readers in
mind to sell books to. So much for us as a "market" argument. didn't work
for the Sonus Radio so no wonder we look to legistlation for a solution.
Sorry to go on a bit, but I certainly hope the IPlayer problem gets solved
soon, but we've so little voice when it comes to publicising these issues; and
thats another shortcoming of programme policy and coverage in this case.
Cheers,
Ray.
----- Original Message -----
From: Colin Fowler
Subject: [access-uk] Re: BBC Iplayer
Hi Ray,
You're absolutely right there. Where the difference here is though, is the
simple fact that the BBC is a public authority, this development and the
subsequent introduction of new applications is paid for by us as licence payers!
The BBC have a statutory obligation to comply with their due regard for the
equality of opportunity for disabled people, and I player as an application as
it has been introduced and currently is available does not demonstrate that the
BBC has in anyway complied with this.
Now, if the BBC who have a statutory obligation to comply with legislation
and don't bother, what message does that send out to application developers
working in the private sector?
This is a golden opportunity for those people disadvantaged by inaccessible
applications to make a statement. We are not prepared to put up with this
discriminatory behaviour any longer!
So who's going to support this? individuals? the BCAB? the BCS?
----- Original Message -----
From: Rays Home
To: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: BBC Iplayer
Well Colin, yu've managed to find something at BCAB! I've just searched
through this month's archive and didn't encounter anything about the new
IPlayer.
There is of course no defence of the IPlayer as it stands but so many large
companies just never ever seem to integrate accessability into the design of
software and websites. It always seems to be that occasionally something gets
done, and then the issue is forgotten about and hasn't made its way into
general practice of developer teams.
I've no idea wether Ulie Schiller is VI or not; most likely not even
though there are VI software writers in the mainstream if very rarely.
Cheers,
Ray.
----- Original Message -----
From: Colin Fowler
Subject: [access-uk] Re: BBC Iplayer
Hmmmmmm, and is Julie Shiller a screen reader user? Not another sighted
person that uses a screen reader from a sighted
persons perspective of testing applications?
Eric Hugger is the head of future media and technology and Andrea
Kalander the head of diversity, I think that we should be petitioning people
with that seniority for improvements, after all they are answerable for any
infringements to accessibility and equality.
I've viewed the BCAB archive on the I Player thread, and apart from one
message that demonstrated just what and how systemic the problem at the BBC is,
there didn't seem to be anything of any more interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1575 - Release Date: 26/07/2008
16:18
Other related posts:
