|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 08/02/07 04:29
On Aug 2, 4:20 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
productions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:38:06 -0700, Chaddy2222
>
> <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> Oh so then you think a PLAIN TEXT site would be superior to
> >> >> say...this:
> >> >>http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/yoga-online/
> >> >Yes!.
> >> ...okay lemme see if I got this right...you think a plain textual
> >> description of yoga positions would somehow be BETTER than video clips
> >> showing REAL PEOPLE in the positions and doing the yoga exercises?
>
> >> ...WHAT?!
> >You obviously have no idea of what I siad or did NOT read it
> >correctly.
>
> ...or, for those of use who aren't living in Bizzaro world like you,
> we DID read it correctly and it is YOU who didn't WORD IT correctly.
> I mean, I asked a question point blank, you responded to it with a
> positive exclamation...pretty much doesn't get any more crystal fuckin
> clear than that.
>
> >I have nothing against the use of Flash and actually in the case of
> >that site both a description of the steps involved and the video would
> >be ideal.
>
> A written description isn't really needed with the audio and the
> video...unless maybe the student is deafblind...that condition however
> affects only about .02% of the population and the number of TRUE
> deafblind (absolutely no sight or hearing) is about .002% and since
> nearly all of those cases involve persons who are in some kind of
> institutional and/or 24 hour care (such as stroke
> victims)...yeah...statistically speaking the probability of the small
> town community college enrolling a total deafblind individual who
> would take the course would be...zero, it simply wouldn't happen short
> of a miracle and if that miracle occurred I'm sure someone would take
> the time to write out some text descriptions, but there's no sense in
> doing extra work that doesn't NEED to be done unless it actually
> BECOMES needed.
>
> >> You really are an idiot and I really don't mean that in a playful
> >> manner, I mean you REALLY ARE an idiot.
> >WELL, if that's what you want to think then go right ahead.... Might I
> >remind you that there are laws regarding web accessibility and that
> >you can be sued for siscrimonation if your sites do not meet
> >particular regulations, and they don't just govern government sites.
> >http://www.tomw.net.au/2001/bat2001f.html
>
> Yeah, that wouldn't stand up so well in court in this day in age. In
> case you hadn't noticed you're linking to something that was only
> partially relevant about SEVEN YEARS AGO. In fact I can tell you with
> ABSOLUTE certainty that if someone ever got me in a court room over a
> case like that..I'd have the whole thing ripped apart by the end of
> it. Same with many other antediluvian laws/regulations/etc, like the
> DMCA for example, that piece of trash really is standing on failing
> legs these days. Although at least the RIAA and the MPAA are
> intelligent enough to only pursue cases with guaranteed wins (like the
> ones where they can get kids kicked out of college if they don't bow
> down and settle out of court).
>
> Generally stuff like that can't even make it to court because there
> has to ACTUALLY be a disabled person who can't access the content and
> in the case of a college it has to be a student OF the college that
> can't access the content and even then the content would have to be
> required for the course and it would have to be the only form, so like
> with the yoga thing, since there's an actual, real life yoga course as
> well as an online version...yeah, the disabled person can be
> accommodated by having them attend the live course.
>
> This is my favorite part of that antediluvian text you linked to:
> "The Internet and the web were (and mostly still are) based on
> printable text"
>
> LOL, not anymore. ^_^
>
I actually am beginning to really wonder how well these laws regarding
web accessibility will be able to actually be in forced. Here in
Australia we now have a section in the disability discrimination act
that relates to websites, but they rely on the W3C's guidelines (which
are rather poor) when it comes to a lot of this multimedia stuff. So
what you say really highlights that point.
The funny part is that podcasts don't require any form of transcript
but they still require them for video. Although the WCAG 2.0 draft is
still quite un-clear about some of this stuff.
> At this point the vast majority of content online is multimedia based,
> not text based...unless maybe you want to include bloggers and message
> boards, but I generally consider those to be in a different class,
> sort of like comparing websites to Usenet groups, they're basically
> apples and oranges.
>
Well yes, but even they are beginning to contain more multimedia
content (Video and audio etc).
One thing I have noticed about the WCAG is that it really only takes
people like myself into account (and even then they can be un-clear)
especially when it comes to multimedia.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|