[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.


  ----- 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 

    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.


      ----- 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 

Other related posts: