I’m horrible at thinking to take the camera out…makes me see the advantage of in-phone cameras!

It’s no problem, just wanted a little clarification.

Yes, my apologies, I was addressing Jeff. It’s probably inappropriate of me to do so, but Jeff made a valid point about the problem of people bringing in emotions in this debate. I just don’t think it’s possible to separate the two.

As for my zealot comment, again, it was addressed to Jeff, who was unfortunate enough to be personally attacked by some folks who don’t know where to stop being passionate, and seem to slide into name calling. I was just trying to point out, we, zealots, aren’t all like that

And thanks for the comments on my site. When are you going to submit photos? {grin}

At any rate, your comments are interesting - although I feel like you’re really addressing Jeff, not me, since you quote his comments, his article, and pretty much agree with me. You’re more responding to his comments on this blog than to my own article.

It left me a bit confused when you said:

And to finish, please don’t put all “zealots� in the same basket. Some of us who are passionate and “emotional� about accessibility don’t resort to insult, name calling and pouncing

Just please make it a little clearer who you’re addressing!

Thanks,
 Joe

Some people (which I called “zealots,â€? perhaps wrongly) seem unable to detach matters of accessibly from emotion. People seem to react with a great deal of passion and often anger instead of responding with reason and logic.

Then from Jeff’s site:

I hope someday we’ll be able to discuss this without people being so damn emotional.

Absolutely, many people are unable to detach emotions from accessibility. I think there are good reasons for that. Not saying it’s necessarily right, or correct, but you can’t dismiss it out of hand.

The problem I see, is that many people, such as you, perceive accessibility as something to be done to meet the checklist. I’m not expressing this correctly. Let me use an example from outside the web. Many people perceive the Americans with Disabilities Act as a “Brick & Mortar” law, that is one that tells you how wide the door has to be, how steep the ramp, how many TTY’s to provide in a hotel, where to place the Braille sign by the hotel doors, etc. Other people see the ADA as a civil rights law which happens to have building regs included. So, ok, in the US (which I dangerously assume you’re based), unless you’re making a government site, you don’t have a *law* requiring access. But the difference is still there.

Does one look at accessibility as a question of civil rights, or as a question of making sure the “alt” attribute is there, contrast is correct, etc? The end result might be the same, a site that works for everyone, regardless of impairment or lack thereof. But what’s behind how you look at it will make you react wildly differently.

For me it *is* a question of civil rights. It’s tempting to say that you might not fully understand this until you’re refused access to a restaurant because you have a guide-dog, refused an appartment lease because you use a wheelchair, access to a website because you’re colour-blind, have a hearing impairment, can’t manipulate a mouse very well, whatever. I’m not saying it, however, because I’ve met too many people who haven’t personally experienced such (wilful or not) discrimination, yet who “get” the civil rights aspect.

So, yes, for me it *is* an emotional debate. While I understand your position from a business POV, it’s in the way the message is delivered.

One of the comments on Jeff’s site:

You could have just as easily written an article about how we should go as far as we can with web accessibility even if sometimes we can’t cover all the bases due to time or financial constraints. Instead you’ve taken the same principle and put an entirely negative spin on it.

I think Grant hit it right on the head here, sometimes it’s not so much *what* you say as *how* you say it. As you pointed out, we mostly agree. But the delivery is important, as it taints the message.

And to finish, please don’t put all “zealots” in the same basket. Some of us who are passionate and “emotional” about accessibility don’t resort to insult, name calling and pouncing

Is this a joke? You ask me to consider the entirely of the document when you, in your own word, singled out one comment of mine to attack unapologetically? It’s okay for you to pick one comment and attack it, but it’s not okay for me to focus on your final words? Huh?

You’re absolutely right, here. I’m very sorry. That was a foolish double standard for me to set.

I’d like to see more discussions about accessibly that don’t eventually descend into “you don’t care about disabled people!â€? That’s all.

Amen.

Well, please consider the entirety of the document you just read, not just the final words.

Is this a joke? You ask me to consider the entirely of the document when you, in your own word, singled out one comment of mine to attack unapologetically? It’s okay for you to pick one comment and attack it, but it’s not okay for me to focus on your final words? Huh?

But I’m bothered by the attitude that it’s a waste of time.

You’re bothered by it because the phrase “waste of time” implies a lack of emotional caring. I get that. If it is decided that a particular project should not add accessibility feature x or y because it would take a lot of time in proportion to the tiny size of user it would impact, I call that a “waste of time.” I might also say “there are better uses of our time” or “inefficient.”

If you have a phrase that is less emotionally jarring than “waste of time,” but means the same thing, I’ll be sure to use it from now on

I emphasized that paragraph too strongly, in my opinion. It was unnecessary for me to express my feelings so strongly. I apologize for that - but I still feel that your statement was unacceptable.

Apology accepted. It’s really not a big deal. But this is exactly the sort of thing I was getting at. Some people (which I called “zealots,” perhaps wrongly) seem unable to detach matters of accessibly from emotion. People seem to react with a great deal of passion and often anger instead of responding with reason and logic.

I’d like to see more discussions about accessibly that don’t eventually descend into “you don’t care about disabled people!” That’s all.

You accuse me of pouncing on you. Well, please consider the entirety of the document you just read, not just the final words. In general I agree with you. However, my feeling is still that no minority is insignificant. It’s OK to decide not to support for them - that happens. But I’m bothered by the attitude that it’s a waste of time.

We all make careless statements sometimes; I certainly have. Please just consider your words carefully - I may have read something in them you didn’t intend. However, I still feel that I read something in them which was actually there.

I emphasized that paragraph too strongly, in my opinion. It was unnecessary for me to express my feelings so strongly. I apologize for that - but I still feel that your statement was unacceptable.