3 ms·

It's an interesting discussion. Governments often require buildings and businesses to have certain accommodations for certain types of people. Are websites dif

by SCdF 8y ago

It's an interesting discussion. Governments often require buildings and businesses to have certain accommodations for certain types of people. Are websites different to buildings of businesses? Mr Bob Hypothetical makes his new burger joint, and spend hundreds of hours working making it so people can eat his awesome burgers. Should there be any building or health codes he should have to follow? I realise the barrier of entry to a website is lower than a physical business. Presumably though at somewhere between ismyideafunnyyet.xyz and amazon.com/co.uk/ca/multi-national doom machine we have to start treating them with the same or similar expectations to the local chippy.

erentz 8y ago
And at least in the US, that’s how things were. Legislation changed that and forced the issue. Maybe we need an ADA update for the web? (There was a good movie on the movement the created the ADA called Music Within for anyone wanting something to watch on the subject.)
- extra88 8y ago
  No we don't, law updates, regulation updates, and case law has made it clear that the principles of the ADA apply to websites as "places of public accommodation."
  - erentz 8y ago
    Do you know if and how those updates translate to codes that need to be complied with? For example we have codes for ramps that specify the maximum grade, length, minimum platform size, etc. I’m wondering if something analogous needs to exist for the web. (Actual regulatory codes, not W3 standards or guidelines.) it would be “fairly” easy for something like USDS to define something like that for use for all Govt sites, and that could be enforced across agencies. Seems tricky for how you’d handle that with non Govt sites.
    - extra88 8y ago
      Section 508, which applies to government sites (and I think their contractors) used to have its own standards but is now aligned with WCAG 2.0 AA. Most countries have done the same. You're never going to have standards for software as clear-cut as architectural standards for ramps and such, the factors for software are too complex. There are only a few digital accessibility standards that are very specific, like color contrast between foreground and background at particular font sizes. There is a need for more specifics from the government in specific areas. For instance WCAG 2.0 AA says videos have to have captions but do you have to wait before making a video available until the captions are ready? If you have thousands of hours of uncaptioned video, would it be sufficient to produce captions by request with a reasonable turnaround time? TV broadcasters and DVD publishers have already had rules to follow but as video has become commonplace, regulations haven't kept up.
ams6110 8y ago
> the barrier of entry to a website is lower than a physical business Are you talking about as a proprietor or as a user/customer? As a customer the access is quite different, to the point of comparing apples to oranges. To access a place of business you simply need to physically get there. The business, if open to the public, needs to make a few reasonable accommodations for special physical needs (e.g. ramps for wheelchairs, etc.) To access an app or website, you need to have a phone or computer, internet connection, and be able to operate those things. Pretty much everything else can be accommodated by the user. To me they are not comparable.
- SCdF 8y ago
  I'm talking about as the proprietor: creating the business online is a lot easier than creating a physical one. Even so: > As a customer the access is quite different, to the point of comparing apples to oranges. > To access a place of business you simply need to physically get there > To access an app or website, you need to have a phone or computer > To me they are not comparable. What lack of overlap do you see between people who can physically go to a building and people who can use a computer?
  - ams6110 8y ago
    I guess, having thought about it some more, my argument would be more that a physical business benefits from community-provided resources. Streets, sidewalks, perhaps public transit, parking, services such as police and fire protection, etc. The public, having provided that infrastructure, should expect some reasonable accommodations be made with regard to accessing businesses that benefit from it. A website is nearly entirely provided by private entities paying or being paid for by the users of the service. Government websites excepted, there is really no "public" anything about a website.
DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
> somewhere between ismyideafunnyyet.xyz The blog post doesn't make that distinction, nor does it seem like the author really cares. That's precisely my point. Is it a moral obligation for amazon to build their services so everyone can use them? There's probably a strong case there. I think we need to draw a few clear lines. Some websites are inherently tied to one medium and don't make sense beyond it, others should be viewed as a piece of art, just like a drawing or a piece of music.
- SCdF 8y ago
  > I think we need to draw a few clear lines. Some websites are inherently tied to one medium and don't make sense beyond it, others should be viewed as a piece of art, just like a drawing or a piece of music. Agree there, and it's very hard to draw these lines. Similarly to whether or not it's OK for software you publish to be a buggy mess, somewhere between your one-weekend lisp implementation you pushed to github and home security camera firmware lines need to be drawn.

by SCdF 8y ago

erentz 8y ago

And at least in the US, that’s how things were. Legislation changed that and forced the issue. Maybe we need an ADA update for the web? (There was a good movie on the movement the created the ADA called Music Within for anyone wanting something to watch on the subject.)

extra88 8y ago
No we don't, law updates, regulation updates, and case law has made it clear that the principles of the ADA apply to websites as "places of public accommodation."
- erentz 8y ago
  Do you know if and how those updates translate to codes that need to be complied with? For example we have codes for ramps that specify the maximum grade, length, minimum platform size, etc. I’m wondering if something analogous needs to exist for the web. (Actual regulatory codes, not W3 standards or guidelines.) it would be “fairly” easy for something like USDS to define something like that for use for all Govt sites, and that could be enforced across agencies. Seems tricky for how you’d handle that with non Govt sites.
  - extra88 8y ago
    Section 508, which applies to government sites (and I think their contractors) used to have its own standards but is now aligned with WCAG 2.0 AA. Most countries have done the same. You're never going to have standards for software as clear-cut as architectural standards for ramps and such, the factors for software are too complex. There are only a few digital accessibility standards that are very specific, like color contrast between foreground and background at particular font sizes. There is a need for more specifics from the government in specific areas. For instance WCAG 2.0 AA says videos have to have captions but do you have to wait before making a video available until the captions are ready? If you have thousands of hours of uncaptioned video, would it be sufficient to produce captions by request with a reasonable turnaround time? TV broadcasters and DVD publishers have already had rules to follow but as video has become commonplace, regulations haven't kept up.

ams6110 8y ago

> the barrier of entry to a website is lower than a physical business Are you talking about as a proprietor or as a user/customer? As a customer the access is quite different, to the point of comparing apples to oranges. To access a place of business you simply need to physically get there. The business, if open to the public, needs to make a few reasonable accommodations for special physical needs (e.g. ramps for wheelchairs, etc.) To access an app or website, you need to have a phone or computer, internet connection, and be able to operate those things. Pretty much everything else can be accommodated by the user. To me they are not comparable.

SCdF 8y ago
I'm talking about as the proprietor: creating the business online is a lot easier than creating a physical one. Even so: > As a customer the access is quite different, to the point of comparing apples to oranges. > To access a place of business you simply need to physically get there > To access an app or website, you need to have a phone or computer > To me they are not comparable. What lack of overlap do you see between people who can physically go to a building and people who can use a computer?
- ams6110 8y ago
  I guess, having thought about it some more, my argument would be more that a physical business benefits from community-provided resources. Streets, sidewalks, perhaps public transit, parking, services such as police and fire protection, etc. The public, having provided that infrastructure, should expect some reasonable accommodations be made with regard to accessing businesses that benefit from it. A website is nearly entirely provided by private entities paying or being paid for by the users of the service. Government websites excepted, there is really no "public" anything about a website.

DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago

> somewhere between ismyideafunnyyet.xyz The blog post doesn't make that distinction, nor does it seem like the author really cares. That's precisely my point. Is it a moral obligation for amazon to build their services so everyone can use them? There's probably a strong case there. I think we need to draw a few clear lines. Some websites are inherently tied to one medium and don't make sense beyond it, others should be viewed as a piece of art, just like a drawing or a piece of music.

SCdF 8y ago
> I think we need to draw a few clear lines. Some websites are inherently tied to one medium and don't make sense beyond it, others should be viewed as a piece of art, just like a drawing or a piece of music. Agree there, and it's very hard to draw these lines. Similarly to whether or not it's OK for software you publish to be a buggy mess, somewhere between your one-weekend lisp implementation you pushed to github and home security camera firmware lines need to be drawn.