On Aug 2, 5:29 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> On Aug 2, 4:20 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
> > This is my favorite part of that antediluvian text you linked to:
> > "The Internet and the web were (and mostly still are) based on
> > printable text"
> > LOL, not anymore. ^_^
> I actually am beginning to really wonder how well these laws regarding
> web accessibility will be able to actually be in forced. Here in
> Australia we now have a section in the disability discrimination act
> that relates to websites, but they rely on the W3C's guidelines (which
> are rather poor) when it comes to a lot of this multimedia stuff. So
> what you say really highlights that point.
I suspect if this reached a test case in court, it would be dismissed.
It's totally unenforceable for modern multimedia web sites.
Would it cover movie trailer sites? In that case would it cover movies
being broadcast over the WWW... in that case does it cover all movies?
Where are the boundaries for these laws? What if the sites are hosted
outside of Australia? What if the company is based outside of
Australia? What about sites that are animated, say in Flash? Does the
animation have to be covered by this? What about web sites that are
purely visual, like galleries? What about YouTube? What about
GoogleVideo? What about WWW distributed services like GoogleEarth, or
In the same way one web site should not be designed for all people,
the laws covering accessibility need to be seriously looked at.
> The funny part is that podcasts don't require any form of transcript
> but they still require them for video. Although the WCAG 2.0 draft is
> still quite un-clear about some of this stuff.
Yep. So which is which? Just this week a new "live video" system was
launched in the US. It's like YouTube, except the video is live
(realtime). How would this fit into these laws?