- So often those who seek to control the rest of us seem unable to achieve self-control. Case in point: sponsor of NY bill to search gun applicants’ social media accounts [Jon Campbell, Democrat and Chronicle, Sen. Rob Ortt on Twitter] More on Sen. Kevin Parker’s proposal: Scott Greenfield, and my earlier;
- Concerning an issue that Cato has warned about for many, many years, the emergency powers of the President [Elizabeth Goitein/The Atlantic, related video]
- Web accessibility suits hit colleges [Rick Karlin, Albany Times-Union], New York wineries [Brianne Garrett, Wine Spectator, Kathleen Willcox, Wine Searcher, Thomas Pellechia, Forbes], other defendants around New York [Stephen Rex Brown, New York Daily News, Jamie Herzlich/Newsday]
- “How the Feds Spy on Reporters” [Cato Daily Podcast with Julian Sanchez and Caleb Brown]
- Thread on what government subsidies have done to Canadian literature. Reason to resist letting subsidies be pushed further into US literary arts sector, let alone print news as some would like [Jonathan Kay Twitter thread]
- A likely story: “Scottish Grandpa Claims He Checked ‘Terrorist’ Box on Visa Form by Mistake” [Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar]
Filed under: Canada, colleges and universities, do as we say, free speech in Canada, guns, New York, social media, surveillance, terrorism, web accessibility
8 Comments
Web accessibility is so bogus. If you are truly blind then there is no recourse for many parts of life. How can a movie theatre accommodate you? If you go the park, who is responsible for giving you a guided tour of what you can’t see? If you are deaf, how is a concert supposed to “fix” your problem? Do you expect blind-accessible skiing? Some things cannot be fixed and should not be used as extortion tools.
Are there tools for the web? If not, sure, get the gov to fund some or start a company to provide them. Don’t take away the internet from the rest of us, like the college courses that went offline last year (and that Coursera picked up I think).
see wcag 2.0 a, aa, aaa standards and later.
For those providing services to the federal government on the web, see section 508 of the rehabilitation act as amended
When you complain about web accessibility, are you discussing sites by public entities like state universities and states and state/federal agencies, or just private entities? Since I pay taxes, shouldn’t government services on the web be accessible to me? Ditto federal, local, county…
I believe I have pretty well made my stance known here. When I run into issues, I contact the owner of the site, and do what I can to assist them to help me to be able to use their site. Do you have a problem with that as well? As for theaters, audio description is required by the fcc at least in percentages, services such as netflix insure it’s availability, why not theaters? Are they not public businesses? Not that i’ve ever been to an audio described movie at a theater, see netflix above. 😀 I have been to several movies however, including some that actually were audio described (300 for example).
I cannot speak to deaf accommodations.
If it so happens you end up old and blind, go sit in a corner until you croak. Understand, I do not wish that upon you, I would not wish blindness on anyone, ever. My only point there is that it can happen to you, because it does happen to a lot of folks, and that number is expected to double over the next ten years or so (iirc).
Usually, if you can get with the author of the page, and they have some idea of what they are doing, they will work with you to fix your particular issues. Also, I check with several screen readers and browsers, because sometimes it’s not the site. Wow, who woulda thought that software could have bugs? 😀
“see wcag 2.0 a, aa, aaa standards and later.”
These standards are not law and do not create valid ADA claims. The courts should not be the ones to turn these standards into a legal requirement.
I did not say that they were or did. He asked if there were tools for the web. I provided him an answer. In part because it doesn’t matter how good your screen reader is, if it doesn’t have accessible content, it isn’t magic and can make something from nothing.
ADA addresses public accommodations, we would agree that a target store is a public accommodation. We might disagree about a target web site, selling the same items. In my defense, I would like to point out that it’s a lot easier for me to get to target.com than to Minneapolis or whatever is the closest target store to my home. But wishing doesn’t make it law. I did cite section 508 which actually had a web section in the initial technical standard, so there. 😀 And yes, it is only applicable to the federal agency, as is ADA as amended. But where exactly in my post did I claim that ADA requires web accessibility in regards to private businesses? Where did I even say it was required by non-federal web sites, other than those providing services to the federal government? You are welcome to your opinion, just do not attribute things to me and then disagree if I did not actually say any of those things. I did use the word “should” but that is different than “does”.
As for FCC regulations, theaters audio descriptions and the requirements in regulation, I submit that you check with the source of those regulations, laws, if any, for what they say rather than trust some blind guy on the internet… On the other hand, if you want to “see” what audio description brings to the table, and you have a netflix subscription, check near the bottom of the page for the audio described link… And take a listen, could almost do without the pictures even…
Lastly, I was asserting I know nothing about accomodating deaf individuals, no puns or anything else was intended.
I cannot speak to deaf accommodations.
I see what you did there…
I like the idea of social media access for a gun permit. So much so that it should be extended so that anyone submitting an application to run for election or reelection should also be required to allow access to their social media and email for 3 years.
With regard to the emergency powers of the President, where do they come from? With the exception of the authorization for suspension of habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion, nothing in the Constitution authorizes any part of the the government to suspend the Constitution. Where does Congress obtain the authority to authorize the President to ignore the Constitution?
It’s from the unwritten Article VIII: This constitution shall not be construed as a suicide pact.