|
|
Posted by Els on 10/01/22 11:17
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:12:16 +0200, Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding things:
>> I thought the rule that websites have to be accessible and not
>> discriminate against for instance the visually impaired, would be
>> enforced for the same institutions that are by law required to provide
>> access for wheelchairs, like public libraries, government
>> buildings/websites, not the local grocery or the Beatles fanclub
>> magazine?
>>
>> I do agree with the obligation for all government websites to be
>> accessible, but I can't see how any government could make it a law
>> that barbie.com has to be accessible.
>>
>> No one /needs/ access to barbie.com, but it's illegal (imo) to
>> obstruct the entrance to the post office so that a disabled person
>> can't send a letter, or to make a public library site inaccessible to
>> the blind, even though they have enough braille books in their
>> collection.
>
> Ooo, how I disagree :-) Who are you/me/we to decide what it is that anyone
> _needs_ What's a need? Needs develop. Though food, drink and safety are among
> the first things you need, why would being able to express oneself creatively
> not be a need but just some want all of a sudden? Who draws the line? Doesn't a
> blind person have the right of the experience to 'see' a barbie by handling one?
No one has the /right/ to see or 'see' a barbie. You are not saying
you want a law that obliges barbie.com to distribute barbies among the
poor infants in let's say Angola?
The decision about who is and who isn't to touch a real barbie doll,
is entirely the manufacturer's. Next you want a law to ensure the
company doesn't go belly up at some point? ;-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|