My problem with this post is that it introduces a slippery slope. A 
company could always claim there are issues more important than 
accessibility. IMHO, one of the reasons sites aren't more accessible 
than they are is because companies design and implement them without 
accessibility in mind and then making them accessible after the fact is 
too much of a financial burden. Just because a company is ignorant of 
the law and makes bad decisions up front shouldn't give them a free pass.

I agree there are issues more important than accessibility, and I don't 
want to diminish the impacts of the current economic problems. However, 
I don't want to go too far down this slippery slope. After all, 
accessibility is the law and tough economic times don't give you the 
right to break the law. BTW, I think litigation should always be a last 
resort and you need to balance what you stand to gain by winning the law 
suit with what you could potentially lose in bad publicity. I would 
think in these economic times, organizations will be much more judicious 
in pursuing legal solutions to problems like this.

Remember too that the blind are going to be impacted by this economic 
down turn as well, and inaccessible web sites are are an obstacle to 
prosperity that we'll have to deal with that our sighted counterparts 
don't have to worry about.


Mike Pietruk wrote:
> Dorene 
>
> Let me bring in a dose of reality into the discussion that wasn't an issue 
> a year or more back.
> The economy is suffering; companies, in many instances, are on life 
> support.
> Folks in the real world are worried about having a job, whether they can 
> pay their mortgages, the declining value of their investments, and the 
> falling apart of stability around them.
> It may be tough for some on this list to accept this notion:  but for most 
> in the real world, having food on the table takes priority to whether a 
> given site is accessible (whatever that term means anyway for, as has been 
> shown over and over, many sites are very usable even if they aren't 
> totally acessible).
> I am not suggesting that accessability isn't important but, in the grand 
> scheme of things, it is going to play second fiddle until stability 
> returns and prosperity resumes.
> Sorry to burst anyone's bubble; but a company who is perhaps lettings its 
> employees go, seeing declining sales, and other signs of a recessionary 
> economy isn't in a strong position to allocate resources to some things.
> Accessibility is for a time of economic prosperity; but that era, for the 
> time being, is on memory lane and our expectations must be reshaped to 
> meet current priorities. 
> The reality is that the web is exceedingly usable, and there are a lot of 
> businesses doing their best to make their sites as usable as possible for 
> the majority of their current and potential customers -- that makes good 
> business sense.  That said, litigation these days isn't going to get much 
> sympathy on these issues beyound the diehard members of given national 
> organizations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Good works do not make a good man; but a good man does good works.
> Martin Luther
>
>
>     VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> Archived on the World Wide Web at
>     http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
>     Signoff: [log in to unmask]
>     Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
>
>   

-- 
Christopher

[log in to unmask]


    VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
    http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
    Signoff: [log in to unmask]
    Subscribe: [log in to unmask]