[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[FYI] (Fwd) FC: Responses to W3C/disabled groups Web regulations

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:58:33 -0500
To:             	politech@vorlon.mit.edu
From:           	Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject:        	FC: Responses to W3C/disabled groups Web regulations, hack attacks
Send reply to:  	declan@well.com

[This is an interesting case of metaphor shear. Are web sites more
like books or movies (no disabled versions necessary) or bars and
restaurants where handicapped-accessible versions ARE required?

>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:39:17 -0500 (EST)
>From: "J.D. Abolins" <jda-ir@pluto.njcc.com>
>To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>Subject: Re: FC: Disabled special interest groups ask for Web
>The accessibility issue is big one for US federal Web site designers.
>The US DoJ is pushing for agencies to meet a federal standard to be
>established soon.
>My day job is with a state government agency and the accessibility
>requiremnts are sending a ripple here.
>Alt tags and descriptive texts are minor issues compared to what can
>happen if the more stringent accessibility standards were to be
>adopted. A biggie is the spearation of HTML from formatting/layout
>functions. Many Web designs use tables for layout and many people
>aren't using browsers that handle CSS effectively. So this means that
>the page designs will fall apart on older browsers (creating a
>different accessibility problem) or the sites will need to check for
>browser types and choose among multiple versions.
>For non-governmental Web sites, the question of the accessibility
>concept getting extended to most Web sites is a headache.
>I am for accessibility but an overly broad simplistic standard can
>really constrain Web expressions. This is very different than the
>access ramps and such in the physical world. Just soem Monday
>afternoon bleary thoughts.
>J.D. Abolins
>Meyda Online -- Infosec & Privacy Studies
>Web: http://www.meydabbs.com

>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:31:20 -0800
>To: declan@well.com
>From: Bennett Haselton <bennett@peacefire.org>
>Subject: Re: FC: Disabled special interest groups ask for Web
>   regulations
>While I'm against regulation of private Web sites, I hope these
>regulations as they apply to *government* Web sites might force them
>to stop using the idiotic Adobe Portable Document That Exists Only To
>Create An Artificial Need For Our Software Format.  So it's not true
>that no good can come of this...
>         -Bennett

>From: Ron Duplantis <Ron.Duplantis@wonderware.com>
>To: "'declan@well.com'" <declan@well.com>
>Subject: RE: Report from UC Santa Barbara on denial of service attack
>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:35:06 -0800
>The politech subscriber from UCSB suffers from a fundamental
>misunderstanding of broadcast journalism. S/he wrote: "All footage
>displayed shows the open access computer lab terminals available for
>enrolled student usage, which were not used to launch the 'zombie'
>program used in the attack." Being a print-journalism-trained person
>and a critical watcher of broadcast J, I've come to realize that
>these infotainers who masquerade as journalists are only interested
>in "some footage" to go along with their running commentary. It
>doesn't matter that the footage might be technically incorrect.
>Ron Duplantis

---- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this
text: subscribe politech More information is at
------- End of forwarded message -------