Posted by Mark Parnell on 12/19/98 11:17

Previously in alt.html, Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> said:

> Oh I completely agree with you. You can find a million times where I
> say that most sites, especially if they depend on their website for
> revenue, should be accessible to as many people as possible. But what I
> have a problem with is "need to be".

I don't, but I think we're getting into semantics now. I'm not talking
about "need" in the sense of "are required".

> I don't believe the web should be
> regulated so a site "has" to be accessible, or usable.

I agree, though e.g. Government sites are an exception, IMHO.

> Yes, if I am
> selling widgets it only make sense to have my site accessible, and
> usable by as many as possible. But if I as a retailer find that my
> sales go up if I use fancy javascript or flash menus, and cookies or
> [enter your own favorite accessibility or usability issue here]. Then I
> feel it is the right of the web site owner to do as they please, with
> total disregard for any sales they may be turning away because of
> accessibility or usability issues.
>
> I am completely against any form of regulation on the web. And forcing
> a site to be accessible or usable to all would be a regulation. Yes it
> might be dumb for a site to take that route, and in most cases it
> probably is dumb. But I would rather have sites learn from their
> stupidity or g out of business because of it than to regulate what they
> can or can not do.

Fair enough. As I said above, I'm not talking about forcing them to
comply. What I am saying is that for a site to be successful, it *needs*
to be accessible, in the same way that for me to survive crossing a busy
road, I *need* to be careful. Yes, there may be exceptions, but they are
a small minority.

Methinks we actually agree on most points; we're just arguing it from
different perspectives. :-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/

[Back to original message]