> It seems to me to be the consensus from those commenting on the
> accessibility issues that it?s OK to discriminate on the basis of
> disability.  I doubt anyone would advocate barring people of a
> particular colour or race to their website, sexuality or religion.
> But when it comes to accessibility and a person with a disability,
> then it?s OK. Oh god,haven?t we moved on from here?

Oh, cut it out... you're obviously so far left on this issue that
you're beyond help.  As someone with two close relatives blind for
half their lives, I'm not insenstive to their disability.  But
legislating that every website owner go to the expense of their
website being "accessible" to every person of every disability is
absurd.  And suggesting that failure to do so is discrimination is
nothing but hyperbole.

I mentioned in my first email, that most websites would probably
want to increase their audience as much as possible, provided that
the benefit outweighted the cost.  It might seem noble to suggest
that it should be implemented "regardless of cost" - but it isn't
very practical.

Half the websites you go to don't even work on every browser -
maybe we should legislate to do something about that?!  Maybe
while we're at it, we should legislate the mandatory use of
emoticons to indicate sarcasm.
                       |
                       |
                       +----> Hint:  ;)

> And yes Kirk, I am saying it?s unacceptable, and hopefully
> illegal, to discriminate against someone because of a whole
> range of issues, including disabilities.

I think where we differ, David, is in our concept of discrimination.

Regards,
Kirk Fletcher