Quoted: Quoted: Yep - its call STANDARDS. www.w3c.org. If everyone adheared to these standards, they would be accessable to blind and other disablled people. bah - amature web designers. And big companies are not immune to shitty design. No - it's called FREEDOM. www.constitution.com If everyone adhered to these standards, we wouldn't have such oppressive government interference and people wouldn't be FORCED to submit to a tyranny of the minority. Bah - ignorant collectivists. And supposedly freedom-loving people are not immune to shitty understanding of "freedom".

Everyone has the FREEDOM to design POS sites. But the fact that standards are made are so that they look the same in all browsers. Standards make my life easier - and can make the users browsing experiance better.

Remember how shitty the whole IE/Netscape war was? Sites worked in one, but not the other? Today most site look similar in any browser - thanks mainly to web standards.

Furthermore - this is not really about freedom. There is a right way, and a wrong way to build a website, just like everything else. You can build a house up to code, or not. There is a reason to build it up to code, as it will be safe and last a long time.

It doesnt take any extra money to make a standards compliant site - it just takes designers who know WTF they are doing.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yep - its call STANDARDS. www.w3c.org. If everyone adheared to these standards, they would be accessable to blind and other disablled people. bah - amature web designers. And big companies are not immune to shitty design. No - it's called FREEDOM. www.constitution.com If everyone adhered to these standards, we wouldn't have such oppressive government interference and people wouldn't be FORCED to submit to a tyranny of the minority. Bah - ignorant collectivists. And supposedly freedom-loving people are not immune to shitty understanding of "freedom". Everyone has the FREEDOM to design POS sites.

No they don't.

Not under the ADA.

And it's gonna cost people millions.

Besides, there is no such thing as a non-POS site. Absolutely NO website can accomodate all possible forms of people's disabilities.

If a person is blind AND deaf and only understands Swahili written in braille, 100% of the internet sites are "POS sites".

Quoted: But the fact that standards are made are so that they look the same in all browsers. Standards make my life easier - and can make the users browsing experiance better. Remember how shitty the whole IE/Netscape war was? Sites worked in one, but not the other? Today most site look similar in any browser - thanks mainly to web standards.

That's all irrelevant because if a person is BLIND - it doesn't matter WHAT the website "looks" like!

Quoted: Furthermore - this is not really about freedom. There is a right way, and a wrong way to build a website, just like everything else. You can build a house up to code, or not. There is a reason to build it up to code, as it will be safe and last a long time. It doesnt take any extra money to make a standards compliant site - it just takes designers who know WTF they are doing.

Bullshit. Captioning, transcripts, descriptions of videos, alternative content, table and graph summaries... every extra hour of work spent by web teams in order to accomodate blind, deaf, illiterate parapalegic web-users is money.

And it IS a matter of "freedom" when you're facing a multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit that NO ONE should have the power to force upon any company just because that company wants to exercise their freedom to create any fucking website they want for any segment of their customers they think they want reach.

And if you think it's a "POS" website - don't shop there.

Freedom.

Quoted: Quoted: Everyone has the FREEDOM to design POS sites. No they don't. Not under the ADA.

First off - I dont think the ADA requires websites to be standards compliant. But most people could keep out of trouble by designing their sites to be Standards compliant. Another thing is to start looking towards XML and XHTML. In the future, CONTENT and LOOK will be a lot more seperate than it is today. For a good read on this subject, check out Designing with Web Standards

Quoted: Besides, there is no such thing as a non-POS site. Absolutely NO website can accomodate all possible forms of people's disabilities. If a person is blind AND deaf and only understands Swahili written in braille, 100% of the internet sites are "POS sites".

I dont think anyone is suggesting that. First off, I dont think there is a way for a deaf/blind person to surf. But there is a way for blind people to surf. The web has a TON of info - and its AMAZING how much has developed since, say 1995. In 10-20 years one will HAVE to use the net to be able to do a lot of things in the world. Pay bills, etc etc.

In the article their main beef is that Image Maps are required to get around in the site. Lets face it - image maps are archaic. Its also not accessability friendly. (though to be honest, it IS standard complient right now - but its on the way out). Another thing - and where people WOEFULLY fail is to include a small ALT tag for images.

Quoted: Quoted: But the fact that standards are made are so that they look the same in all browsers. Standards make my life easier - and can make the users browsing experiance better. Remember how shitty the whole IE/Netscape war was? Sites worked in one, but not the other? Today most site look similar in any browser - thanks mainly to web standards. That's all irrelevant because if a person is BLIND - it doesn't matter WHAT the website "looks" like!

I was trying to illustrate that that Standards compliant webdesign has its uses beyond appeasing the ADA and people with disabilities.

Quoted: Furthermore - this is not really about freedom. There is a right way, and a wrong way to build a website, just like everything else. You can build a house up to code, or not. There is a reason to build it up to code, as it will be safe and last a long time. It doesnt take any extra money to make a standards compliant site - it just takes designers who know WTF they are doing.

Quoted: Bullshit. Captioning, transcripts, descriptions of videos, alternative content, table and graph summaries... every extra hour of work spent by web teams in order to accomodate blind, deaf, illiterate parapalegic web-users is money.

First off - way to ignore my very appropriate example.

Second - it isnt really required to do all of that. Jeffery Zeldman can explain it better than I can in the above listed book. No one is suggesting the steps you are suggesting.

Quoted: And it IS a matter of "freedom" when you're facing a multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit that NO ONE should have the power to force upon any company just because that company wants to exercise their freedom to create any fucking website they want for any segment of their customers they think they want reach. And if you think it's a "POS" website - don't shop there. Freedom.

I never said I agreed with the law sut. In general, I think people are sue happy. But then again, suing Target is a good way to get a cause noticed. I DO think that designers SHOULD be more conscience of web standards. Designers seem to forget their #1 job is to convey information. One can make sites accessable to MOST people, even the blind, with minimal fuss and expense. They either dont know how, or dont care.

While I value "freedom" as much as the next guy.  I cant support you in your beating of the mantra. Freedom with out any rules or guidelines is no longer freedom - its anarchy.

I would think Target would want to make their web site more accessible just for the additional revenue.

Agreed.  Instead, Target spent money to intentionally make their web site unaccessible by both blind and many seeing users.  While I don't think they should be sued for it, Target did make an utterly stupid decision to not create a standard web page and instead created a piece of proprietary garbage that many people can't use.  You simply can not use their "web site" without installing an extra program to display their proprietary content.  Many users are smart and refuse to install that sort of garbage to protect themselves from security problems or use good systems that aren't supported by that proprietary piece of junk.  It's been years since I've seen someone in IT naive enough to install something like that.

This isn't about web standards at all, since the Target so-called web site is not a web site.z