Demaestro - 6:57 pm on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

In other words, you can do what you want as long as you identify things clearly so people can tell what they are.

No, quite trying to put words in my post, the reason for the mapping is a safety issue for anyone who comes along after the fact and needs to do wiring work. Again this an issue of safety of the worker, not an issue of FORCING industry standards onto businesses.

Actually electrical codes (e.g. law) require the use of specific color codes for wiring in most areas.

Actually I don't think that is the case, there may be a few states that this is true but I don't think so. I can speak for Canada when I say that color specific wires is not regualted by law.

In any event standards that are in place for public safety are law for that reason, the safety of the public. Screen readers hardly qualify as a matter of public saftey.

Accessibility guidelines are in the end about creating more opportunities for those with disabilities like blindness, and affording them more opportunities to lead a more normal life. In short this is about basic human dignity and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sure this is absolutely true, so I will ask again, what brick and mortar equivilent to they have for the blind to identify products or even the isles? The answer is still none. And yet they want to FORCE you to do these things on your website.

This isn't about access. Anyone can access the Target website by typing in the URL. It isn't like there is code denying entry to a blind person.

A blind person has as much access to Target's physical store as they do the website. Just once in, that person can't see any of the products or purchase them and so they will always require assitence to do so. So why force this law onto ecommerce sites and not the actual store itself? Why force this at all? And don't say access because as I have pointed out they have access.

This is a true story........

The other day I was at 7-11 getting a Slurpee and this gentleman who was in a wheelchair and seemed to have very limited control over only 1 arm( the other didn't seem to do what he wanted it to) rolled up with a huge cup on his lap. He asked if I would fill his cup with pepsi slush which I gladly did he wheeled over to the counter and had the teller remove his change purse and get the amount needed and provided him change and then hheld the door open for him.

Now do you think that it should be required by law that this man be able to accses the Slurpee machine without assitance? Should 7-11 be sued for discrimination?

Of course not.

That fact is he has limitations and so therfor requires help from others. I am all for making his life easier, there were ramps to allow him access and wide dors that made his chair easy to get through and into the store, but there is only so much 7-11 can do. They can't make everything available to him.

I am sure if a blind man came in and was all ready for a nice slush still would have had to ask someone which level was the one for pepsi. Should 7-11 be sued over Slurpee machine access?

If we go passing laws everytime someone with a disability feels slighted because he can't do something that everyone else can do then we are going to spend a lot of time and money that would be better served elsewhere.

Imagine if under this precendent someone sued an online gaming site because they don't have in game vocals describing what is on the screen. It would be insne and yet they would have legal grounds based on this judgement.

We should be helping these people and making their life easier, but like it was said already, not with a gun to our head, or more to the point, not under threat of being sued for discrimination or being prosecuted by law.

[edited by: Demaestro at 7:02 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2006]