Posted by Barbara de Zoete on 11/16/14 11:17

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?


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[Back to original message]