|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 08/02/07 10:50
On Aug 2, 6:39 pm, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 5:29 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 4:20 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
> > > 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.
>
> I suspect if this reached a test case in court, it would be dismissed.
> It's totally unenforceable for modern multimedia web sites.
>
> Would it cover movie trailer sites? In that case would it cover movies
> being broadcast over the WWW... in that case does it cover all movies?
> Where are the boundaries for these laws? What if the sites are hosted
> outside of Australia? What if the company is based outside of
> Australia? What about sites that are animated, say in Flash? Does the
> animation have to be covered by this? What about web sites that are
As for sites based out of Australia (they would still be covered) if
not by our laws by the UK laws regarding web accessibility.
Considering how closely our Governments work together now a days.
Although it's sivel law where dealing with here so that might not
apply (I siriously have not put much thaught into that part of it).
> purely visual, like galleries? What about YouTube? What about
> GoogleVideo? What about WWW distributed services like GoogleEarth, or
> web services?
>
Hmm well obviously some of those services would be easier then others
to make accessible, although Youtube get around the laws by provideing
a description of every video (on the right next to each one.)
As for live video, a description won't need to be provided. (the same
goes for live webcasts of audio I believe.)
> In the same way one web site should not be designed for all people,
> the laws covering accessibility need to be seriously looked at.
>
On that note, most government sites I have been to lately are in
sirious need of useability testing, they use different colours for
links on every page etc etc.
I reckon the accessibility guidelines need to look at general design
ideas (good useability) as well as access by those of us useing
adaptive technology (cause at the moment you can have an accessible
site that is un-useable by the majority of the population!.
> > 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.
>
> Yep. So which is which? Just this week a new "live video" system was
> launched in the US. It's like YouTube, except the video is live
> (realtime). How would this fit into these laws?
Well it's the W3C guidelines where talking about (not the laws so
much), the laws jusst state that stuff needs to be made accessible
(but the guidelines are used as a way of assisting loyers to
prossicute against site owners (or I think that's the idea behind it
anyway):.
Siriously, the case about 7 years ago would of had more of a benifit
to the loyers then anyone else I reckon.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|