4 ms·

If websites want their business they will use the alt and title tag appropriately, I could be in the minority thinking we all ready have too many laws.

by redorb 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago
The ADA is a decades old law. What's changed is that the Internet has become a critical too for people to live their lives, and not just something nerds use. It's entirely appropriate that the ADA be applied online now. And let's face it, putting up some alt tags and making things keyboard navigable is far less expensive than making things compliant in the real world. Remember, this I'd just for sites engaged in commerce. And if this stifles "innovation" in web site design, well that would be fucking fantastic. We really don't need more "innovation" by web site designers--they've already done enough damage to the internet.
derleth 14y ago
The problem with this is the same one that lead to the ADA mandating ramps: The handicapped are too small a population with too little money for businesses to financially justify adding ramps simply to get their business, but without the ramps the handicapped can't shop at all. It's a Nash equilibrium in that the first business to unilaterally add a ramp loses money and becomes less competitive than their rampless competition, so the steady-state strategy (the one chosen by players who all know every other player's strategy) is to not build any ramps at all. Nobody can move unilaterally without losing, so nobody moves at all. This is why the government does these things: To break Nash equilibria that have harmful externalities. In this case, the harmful externality is handicapped people having shittier lives. Much the same logic applies to what the EPA does.
arrrg 14y ago
I don’t think you quite understand why this area is regulated at all: precisely because disabled people are too small a minority to have that kind of power. The disabled being denied access to critical infrastructure is a market failure†. That’s why there is a discussion about regulation. It would be super great if everything could be solved by the market (politicians tend to be clumsy, not the brightest and not super efficient), sadly I cannot see that being possible. A world in which the market solves everything neatly along our moral views would be pretty awesome, I just don’t think that’s the world we live in. I want market solutions to as many problems as possible and will happily accept them whenever they exist. If they don’t, however, I’m more than happy to begrudgingly accept a regulatory approach. — † Underlying this is the assumption that the disabled should not be violated in their human dignity. If you do not share this view then you might arrive at different conclusions and I don’t think I want to talk to you any further.

If websites want their business they will use the alt and title tag appropriately, I could be in the minority thinking we all ready have too many laws.

by redorb 14y ago

If websites want their business they will use the alt and title tag appropriately, I could be in the minority thinking we all ready have too many laws.

rayiner 14y ago

The ADA is a decades old law. What's changed is that the Internet has become a critical too for people to live their lives, and not just something nerds use. It's entirely appropriate that the ADA be applied online now. And let's face it, putting up some alt tags and making things keyboard navigable is far less expensive than making things compliant in the real world. Remember, this I'd just for sites engaged in commerce. And if this stifles "innovation" in web site design, well that would be fucking fantastic. We really don't need more "innovation" by web site designers--they've already done enough damage to the internet.

derleth 14y ago

The problem with this is the same one that lead to the ADA mandating ramps: The handicapped are too small a population with too little money for businesses to financially justify adding ramps simply to get their business, but without the ramps the handicapped can't shop at all. It's a Nash equilibrium in that the first business to unilaterally add a ramp loses money and becomes less competitive than their rampless competition, so the steady-state strategy (the one chosen by players who all know every other player's strategy) is to not build any ramps at all. Nobody can move unilaterally without losing, so nobody moves at all. This is why the government does these things: To break Nash equilibria that have harmful externalities. In this case, the harmful externality is handicapped people having shittier lives. Much the same logic applies to what the EPA does.

arrrg 14y ago

I don’t think you quite understand why this area is regulated at all: precisely because disabled people are too small a minority to have that kind of power. The disabled being denied access to critical infrastructure is a market failure†. That’s why there is a discussion about regulation. It would be super great if everything could be solved by the market (politicians tend to be clumsy, not the brightest and not super efficient), sadly I cannot see that being possible. A world in which the market solves everything neatly along our moral views would be pretty awesome, I just don’t think that’s the world we live in. I want market solutions to as many problems as possible and will happily accept them whenever they exist. If they don’t, however, I’m more than happy to begrudgingly accept a regulatory approach. — † Underlying this is the assumption that the disabled should not be violated in their human dignity. If you do not share this view then you might arrive at different conclusions and I don’t think I want to talk to you any further.