I really don't know why I feel I must respond to this, as I am sure it will
fire up someone.. But....

I have a few disabled friends. One is a paraplegic, another is blind, and
another deaf.... and a mix of others.

Nearly all of them as very reasonable people and realistically understand
their situation.

The paraplegic understands there are many things he can't do, and he doesn't
whinge about the things he can't or have a go at the people who might
provide the things he can't do.

My blind friend listens to a lot of radio.. And surfs the net a lot.  He
also reads what's available for him in print, but doesn't whinge about the
millions of websites that he can't look at.  He has actually commented that
it isn't the fault of businesses out their that he is blind and that they
shouldn't have to pay for people like him, but he thanks the ones that
do.... but feels no-one should be forced to.

An interesting comment he made about websites specifically was that it was
impractical to expect every business to make it so that he could 'hear'
their website - not even by tagging for screen readers... And that it would
be like forcing every billboard owner to install FM transmitters explaining
what the billboard was trying to say... As well as the many many other
examples which are like this.

I called him about this thread to ask what he thought about it... And his
first question was whether David was blind... And that since blind people
are generally not also mute, that unless David is blind, to let blind people
speak for themselves.  The general principal being that if there is
something that they (blind collective) feel that they 'should' by rights
have access to, then they will say so (and nearly always get a favourable
response), but forcing everyone to design and do everything for every blind,
deaf, mute, physically disabled and others - people is just stupid.

He did go on to say that while he would expect government type organisations
to consider disabled people (which they nearly always do), commercial
organisations should be free to do as much or as little as they want, but
those who do service a particular disabled demographic get known quickly and
the word is spread around and those businesses often benefit from that.

He was also sick of people who weren't disabled using them as a platform to
cause controversy and bring attention more to themselves than the actual
issue.

--

I just thought I would pass on some comment from someone who is disabled who
had something interesting to say. Flame away if you are bored, after all
these years my skin is pretty thick.

...Skeeve




-----Original Message-----
From: dns-bounces+skeeve=skeeve.org§dotau.org
[mailto:dns-bounces+skeeve=skeeve.org§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Chadd
Sent: Sunday, 12 November 2006 6:00 PM
To: .au DNS Discussion List
Subject: Re: [DNS] Let's Talk Net

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006, Kirk Fletcher wrote:

> 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.

Thats why these sorts of things are legislated - disabilities aren't about
"cost".

> > 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.

And, again, that particular issue - the differing of the concept of
'discrimiation' - is why these things end up being legislated.
You can't leave it to people to self-regulate on this matter because
(a) its not a question of economics, its a question of social responsbility,
and (b) people have differing opinions on both.



Adrian

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/