On Aug 2, 11:50 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
> On Aug 2, 6:39 pm, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 5:29 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> > wrote:
> > > 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
> As for sites based out of Australia (they would still be covered) if
> not by our laws by the UK laws regarding web accessibility.
Impossible to prosecute... implausible to try, and not helpful at all
to the causes which these laws are supposed to address. Another
example of stupid laws passed by people who do not understand human
behaviour or technology, let alone the market :(
> Considering how closely our Governments work together now a days.
> Although it's sivel [civil] law where dealing with here so that might not
> apply (I siriously [seriously] have not put much thaught [thought] into that
part of it).
I just don't understand how it can work. How can you meaningfully
describe a painting?
> > purely visual, like galleries? What about YouTube? What about
> > GoogleVideo? What about WWW distributed services like GoogleEarth, or
> > web services?
> Hmm well obviously some of those services would be easier then others
> to make accessible, although Youtube get around the laws by provideing
> a description of every video (on the right next to each one.)
No, see this is example of how utterly useless these laws are. The
videos are posted by users (regular people). YouTube do NOT describe
the videos, neither do Google. They do allow users to describe the
content *if they want*. Most do not, or have some random description
"me and my friends" or something like that. This would not be helpful
at all for a screen reader as it doesn't actually describe the content
of the video, or provide a transcript of any spoken words IN the
> As for live video, a description won't need to be provided. (the same
> goes for live webcasts of audio I believe.)
So define webcasts? Do they have to be real time? What if the user
pauses the video? Is it then illegal because it is no longer live?
See there are FAR to many ways of using these technologies to apply a
generalised simplistic law, and it's really unfair on all involved. It
doesn't actually make anything more accessible, and it's in real
danger of limiting the experience you give other users. You're in
danger of discriminating against the bulk of your audience, which is
Just as with one "design" not being applicable to all subjects, you
cannot then go judge all web sites by one law. Accessibility is a
serious issue, which needs to be thought out and discussed by smart
people who actually DEAL with real life online communities and design,
not grey men in suites in anonymous government buildings.
> > In the same way one web site should not be designed for all people,
> > the laws covering accessibility need to be seriously looked at.
> On that note, most government sites I have been to lately are in
> sirious need of useability testing, they use different colours for
> links on every page etc etc.
> I reckon the accessibility guidelines need to look at general design
> ideas (good useability) as well as access by those of us useing
> adaptive technology (cause at the moment you can have an accessible
> site that is un-useable by the majority of the population!.
> > 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?
> Well it's the W3C guidelines where talking about (not the laws so
> much), the laws jusst state that stuff needs to be made accessible
> (but the guidelines are used as a way of assisting loyers to
> prossicute against site owners (or I think that's the idea behind it
> Siriously, the case about 7 years ago would of had more of a benifit
> to the loyers then anyone else I reckon.