theda wrote:1. If it's on the web, it's public

Please note the difference between a public site, and a site offering a public service. There is one, and I specifically spelled it out.
theda wrote:2. I will eventually sell stuff (Right now, I'm just developing and learning).
Then you do have certain accessibility requirements to meet here in the US. Failure to do so could allow a user to sue you. Its called section 508, and you can read more about it here:
http://www.section508.gov/
theda wrote:Regardless, with these standards, you don't see American companies (HP, Microsoft) building their websites that are compliant... Even though they serve business to UK-shoppers.
Actually, quite a few do. In fact, the two you mentioned do fulfill their 508 requirements - specifically to ensure that everyone can access their page.
theda wrote:Yes, I do discourage anyone from the WAI standards. Not because I am elitist and hate every little 'inferior,' but rather because they aren't good at what they do.
By what standard? Are you disabled? Do you need special accomodations to be able to use the web?
They are *excellent* at what they do - encourage and require websites to embrace the concept that sites need to be designed with *everyone* in mind - not just what the designer THINKS is accessible.
theda wrote:W3C standards for web-languages is extremely useful.
Agreed. And they don't at all acheive accessibility.
theda wrote:
I think that accessibility standards should exist, but a lot of WAI standards are extremely insensitive to the reality around them.
That point I will agree with - they are extremely challenging.
theda wrote:For the most part, how many blind people surf the web?
It doesn't matter if it is *one* user - they have just as much right to use that site. Thats the whole point of disability laws - to ensure that they have just as much right to live, function, and enjoy life as anyone else.
theda wrote:I honestly don't know if there is a simple way for them TO surf the web.
There is. Its called a screenreader. A good example is jaws.
theda wrote:
99% of the web is text and images. How does a blind person read that? Audio? Sure. Braille? Hah, good luck.
Again, your arrogance is both surprising, and disgusting. One of the finest security researchers I've ever met is blind, and has a laptop with a braille keyboard - and I assure you, he could out code you, me, and probably Feyd on a good day.
And then hack the planet.
theda wrote:I doubt people have the time, money, or harddrive space to record all of their content into audio.
They don't have to. If you code to accessible standards, the screen reader takes care of it. Which goes back to the importance of accessibility standards. By implementing them, you make your content available to more people.
theda wrote:
The only thing I can think of is making websites easily viewable by older people (by having colors and fonts that aren't hard on the eyes)...
You've left out color blind users, mentally challenged users, people with eyesight contrast issues.. Thats why you aren't the best person to ask about accessibility, and why there are standards.
theda wrote:
For the most part, my website is compliant with WAI 1, 2, 3 and 508.
Great. Then what is the further discussion about? A chance for you to complain about a standard that has and continues to help people? A chance for you to repeat that you aren't going to code to the standard, when you aren't required to, don't have any intention to, and insult it anyways?
I mean, really.
Let me put things in dramatic perspective for you.
At least one poster in THIS thread uses assisted browsing technology, and does enjoy a realworld benefit from accessibility standards.
Small world? Yes, but it doesn't stop you from making comments about technologies that help people YOU KNOW to access your site. Not to mention encourages others to have the same disdain and disrespect for people who already have enough challenges.
Please - if you don't like WAI, simply don't comply with it. You aren't required to. The rest of the world would be better off without your comments. How many people indeed.