Techrunch readers off target

From: "BlindNews Mailing List" <BlindNews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <BlindNews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:21:52 -0400

BBC Access 2.0 Blog (UK)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

By Paul Crichton

A recent court ruling in California has great implications for website
accessibility in the state, and perhaps beyond. The attitudes of some US
technologists suggest that the ruling came not a moment too soon.

A US District judge in California had found that the e-commerce website of
Target, a major chain of department stores, did not provide sufficient
accessibility to all user groups, and she ruled that further legal proceedings
could go ahead. This has implications for other companies with websites based
in California, and perhaps beyond that state. If you are interested in reading
more about the case, then Out-Law has a fuller discussion on what it all means.

Techcrunch, a hugely popular technology blog, covered the story in sober
fashion, but some of the reactions from readers of the blog have been rather
alarming.

LINK:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/13/websites-may-require-visually-impaired-access-in-california/

There are comments from users displaying great ignorance and bordering on
offensive - "what's next, driver licenses for the blind?" There are even some
comments that cross that border, and are too offensive to repeat here.

Most of the more reasoned objections revolve around time and money. These can
be countered with well-worn arguments - building an accessible website is no
more expensive than an inaccessible one, and an inclusive website reaches a
bigger audience and should therefore make more money in the long run.

There is, however, one cultural objection that we don't often see here in the
UK. This is to do with a free market economy. All the answers sums up the
argument by saying that, "if Target doesn't make its website accessible, then
Target has made a business decision that it doesn't care about business from
the blind. And that's their right."

There is a logic to this, and I can see the argument. But I don't subscribe to
it. I think it is clear that a free market cannot be relied upon to accept its
responsibilities, otherwise there would be far more accessible websites around.

What makes this all so noteworthy is that the debate can be found on
Techcrunch. It isn't just some strange outpost in an unfrequented part of the
net. Comments are from people interested in, and in some cases, building the
cutting edge websites of the internet.

There are accessibility advocates on the thread, so it isn't a situation
without hope. But some of the views expressed by those people who are shaping
the web are not greatly encouraging either.

Some of these people need to improve their awareness of both the issues, and
solutions. And if it takes legislation to compel them to do it, then so be it.

By Paul Crichton 16 Oct 07, 03:29 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/access20/2007/10/techrunch_readers_off_target_1.shtml
BlindNews Mailing List
Subscribe: BlindNews-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" as subject

Techrunch readers off target

Other related posts: