Re: Chris Hansen and |>oug

[Chris Williams <chrisw@miso.wwa.com>]

>From: "Chris Hansen @ Work" <chris@kiva.com>
>Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:45:40 -0600
>Subject: Much rambling (Was Re: Love-Hounds digest V12 #238)

>>    How does the web writer who decides that some people are not worthy
>> of reading his/her web page differ from George Wallace standing on the
>> steps of the university? Again, disregard the emotional connection just 
>> for the moment for the sake of trying to understand.
>
>Now Chris, if I 'disregard the emotional connection' I still see it a 
>bit different than bigotry.  Were I to write a novel in Americanized 
>English, I wouldn't be trying to deny the content of my book to those 
>who are not literate in English.  

   Translating a book to a different language is a major undertaking.
Putting content in the <NOFRAMES> section of a web page is not. It's
five minutes of trouble at the most. That's one of the reasons why
not doing so is so offensive.

>However if someone is intentionally denied access due to their 
>appearance,  sexuality or mother tongue, I get rather incensed, so I 
>can understand your position.  I probably missed out on a whole bunch 
>of  really important info that makes my comments seem foolish and out 
>of order, huh?

   Yes. The earlier posts established that making the page in question,
or any page, readable by everyone would require a tiny amount of time.

   The only reason to avoid doing so is technical bigotry.

  
>From: Douglas Alan <nessus@mit.edu>
>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 03:15:33 -0400
>Subject: Re: misK
>
>> How exactly is "you can't come into this store because you are
>> black" different from "you can't read this page because you don't
>> have expansive computer equipment"?
>
>The differences are of such a magnitude and multitude that one hardly
>knows where to begin.  The differences are so obvious and so
>significant that it makes me question the sanity of anyone who would
>say such a thing as you have said.  Either that or the person saying
>such a thing has some veiled or latent racism that they are trying to
>express.
 
   You are still reacting to the emotional content, and reacting in
a very emotional way. I admire your intellect |>oug. Please do me
the favor of using it.

   I'd suggest that your difficulty in finding a starting place may be
rooted in your own biases. 

   What *is* the difference - again, divorced from the emotional context.

>>   Take away all the emotional elements - that the first inspires deep
>> repugnance and the second doesn't seem to bother most people. Remove all
>> that from the equation. Compare tham as two instances of bigotry; racial
>> versus technical. 
>
>And why should I take these things away from the equation?  The fact
>of the matter is that apartheid SHOULD inspire deep repugnance, and
>Netscape-only pages are at most a minor annoyance.  There is plenty of
>material on the Web that I can't access from my Unix computer because
>there is no good QuickTime implementation for Unix, or whatever.  Here
>tons of money has been laid out for my computer, and I still can't
>access some Web material!  You don't see me frothing at the mouth and
>claiming that I'm being trampled on like a black person being pushed to
>the back of the bus.  What planet are you living on, Chris?  Certainly
>not the same one as I.

   You're still refusing to see how much impact this has. I'll give you
another example, OK? Until frames, at least some part of every web page
could be read by the blind using speaking browsers. Post frames (at least
in the hands of the unthinking) huge portions of the web are now unavailable
to them. Before Netscape, the web was a place where the sighted and unsighted
had an equal footing. Web page creators didn't have to make any sort of
special effort to make their information available to everyone. Now, as
more pages are made by people concerned with design to the exclusion of
information, the blind are being pushed back into a limited world.

   Is this enough of a reason? Bad web page writers treating the blind
as second class citizens - worse, making what *could* be accessible
completely inaccessible for no reason.

   Movies can be offered in a number of different formats. You could make
the argument that providing an MPEG format in addition to QuickTime is
a burden, that it requires more server space and software. But putting 
content in the <NOFRAMES> tags is not a burden.

>I don't plan on making a decent stab in this forum at listing all the
>reasons why your position is full of crap, because listing all of the
>reasons would take up many pages, and most of these reasons would be
>obvious to all.  To be very brief, using your reasoning, Chris, the
>Web itself would be just as bad as apartheid because not everyone can
>afford a computer or a network connection. 

   No. Again, the offensive act is in not making the *minimal* effort.
Wiring everyone in the country up is difficult. But everyone *can* get
access to the www via their local public library. Libraries are likely
to only have VT-100 terminals with Lynx, as their budgets don't allow
top-of-the-line computers or the staff to keep the machines updated
with the latest whizzy browsers.

>Furthermore, charging
>money for anything would be an attrocity because not everyone can
>afford the price.  Writing a book in English (or a Web page, for that
>matter) would be an attrocity unless you provided translations in
>every known language.  Using your reasoning, Chris, it would be better
>not to write a Web page at all, unless you had the time and resources
>to make sure that it would work with all browsers.

   This sort of poor logic is beneath you.

>The mind boggles at all the ways Netscape-only Web pages are precisely
>NOT like apartheid.

   Name them. You haven't. 

   State, in simple clear terms exactly how making a web page inaccessible 
to the blind, the poor and the less computer savvy *isn't* bigotry. 

>> But the two biggest Kate Bush fans *cannot* see this page. Peter
>> Fitzgerald-Morris has a 286 with a 9600-baud modem. Andy Marvick is
>> on AOL.  What do these two major Kate fans see when they look at
>> Mr. Siedhoff's page?
>
>I truly doubt that either one of these fans would want their name used
>to defend this repugnant position of yours.

   Ask them. Simple facts - the people who compiled the information featured
in Mr. Siedhoff's "Kate Timeline" cannot see it. Why do you think it's
wrong to point this out? 

   Please deal with the issue, rather than your emotional reaction to an
example of it.

>> Obviously I don't mean to belittle anyone's suffering.
>
>Well, you are.  So stop.

  I am on the side of right, and am fighting against hatred and bigotry.

  Why should I stop?