|
|
Posted by SpaceGirl on 08/02/07 08:30
On Aug 1, 6:38 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:42:33 -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.
> 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.
>
>
>
> > 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
> --
> Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Personally I think these laws are pretty crappy for some things.
Blanket laws like this just don't work. I'm all for accessibility, but
for ALL things? No. All media isn't designed for all markets, or all
people. So how can one law cover all things?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|