I'm right, you're wrong, Google!

Stop trying to be a martyr. Yes, there are lots of disabled people who use the internet, the blind included but if you keep up with your approach you won't make a bit of difference, only show yourself to be someone with a bee in his bonnet and likely to get ignored. You're a smart guy. Change your approach to this.

 

That guy is a piece of SH*T who can't take a little criticism. Every time I post an opinion that shows him and/or Google as less than perfect, he gives me bad reputation for it (as if I really gave a sh*t). He's a child and will never understand. He's the type of person who probably laughs at people with disabilities. He's a prick. Pay no attention to him or his kind.

Go ahead aeiouy (SH*THEAD). Take what's left. IT WAS WELL WORTH IT!

 

It would be nice to have more flexibility but then again its there program they can do as they want

 

I feel sick after reading all of the piss take posts from the regulars on this forum... (Especially by people I thought I respected)

If you had any sense, you'd realise that in the UK alone, accessible and partially sighted web users account for around 20% of the total UK market share (Yeah - I bet you didn't know that eh)...

So that means, if the code was readable by accessible users, that your potential audience would automatically increase by 20%... Instantly.

Why don't you all stop jumping down this guys throat..

Talk about mob mentality.

 

I for one agree to the above post but then again. It shouldnt be put as a complaint to google it should be put first as a suggestion. After all they account for a huge percentage of the internet, And its there affiliate program you are using there rules

 

I don't disagree - I think the first message was a *little* over the top, but I agree 100% with the sentiment.

More than anything though, I'm shocked and appaled by the attitude of some of the users on this forum.

 

Yup im only new about an hour ago, just reading through the threads i see a lot of this
The forum gives a professional feel but yet silly threads and responses.
To cut it short if he wants to complain so be it. After all you dont get if you dont ask

Good luck

 

You are perfectly right, McFox* but some of the flaws are just shameful. Take a look at the source code to any of Googles pages, look at any page with the likes of Googles referral banners with the images disabled. It's just a complete blank. It's not like we can really alter it either.

*Mutter*

Also, I didn't get wake up antsy, I've tried the suggestion route a few times, polite nudges, and so forth. All you get is a standard response - don't alter anything...

You know at the end of the day it's companies like this that people look up to, aspire to. So when they can't be bothered, what message do thing think it sends.

As the polls seem to show, a third don't get it, which is fine - it took me years and I'm still learning, but more that a third couldn't care less. I'm alright Jack!

*(And yes, I was maybe a bit too fired up with the buggers this time )

 

Do you mind quoting the source for that, sounds interesting.

I think Googles reluctance to make their pages conform to xhtml etc is that they have to reply on their sites looking the same in every browser not matter how old. Stuff like position:float or other css isn't going to work with some browsers/phones but stuff like bgcolor has been around for long enough to make sure it works. Degrading gracefully isn't really an option. Not saying it's right, just saying thats why I think they do it.

 

This isn't the research I was referring to, but this will do

http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-281187/tm.htm

 

Do they state reference to total users worldwide of the internet, or is this just starting that 20% of the respondents are partialy imparied? Some confusions from skimming over the text.

 

No idea on that doc - the one I read was produced by the RNIB (I think) if you feel like digging it out...

 

When people come out and bash me as eloquently as you have done here... It really makes me want to consider my ways.


BWAHAHAHAHA

Yea right.

 

That source points to http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialcare/524.asp as a link to the source. The statistics are based on 193 people who completed questionnaires from enquirers to AbilityNet, and the 20% of that are what they are refering to, not 20% of the whole 'UK market' as you put it:

I think you should research your statistics a bit more.

 

I didn't give two flips one way or another about his crusade. I took direct issue with him claiming not having "valid" html code as being illegal.

It is not. By the way I did some research and apparently it is illegal to have your site not in compliance with the 1995 disability act. I would like to see information about 20% of the internet users being disabled. From what I have seen disabled people are significantly less likely to use the internet than people who are not disabled. So I find that number to be way too high.


If people want to be taken seriously, they need not be completely ridiculous. It need not be the responsibility of the audience to wade through the idiocy to get to the meat. If he wants his message to be taken seriously then he needs to present it in such a way.

I am not opposed to better opportunities for disabled people on the internet. That doesn't mean I need to accept nonsense like not having valid html code is illegal. Nor do I have to accept his methods.

If he behaved differently he would likely have MUCH more success working with businesses like google to enact change. Instead he comes across as a quack.


edit: by the way I found this:

http://www.imtc.gatech.edu/csun/stats.html

Around 20% of the people in the US are classified with disabilities. Half of them severe. What is the percentage of people who can't view web pages through normal means though? It is a small fraction of that. Certainly nowhere close to 20%. I am guessing it is not much different in the UK. They should not be ignored, but it doesn't help things when you tell people they can add 20% of the people to their website if they just make these changes. It is not true.


Somehow people think that if someone has a noble message to convey it is somehow acceptable for them to behave unreasonably.

I do not subscribe to that at all.

 

I think you should read my post a little better.

Like I say, the RNIB Ran this research (And no, they didn't ask every single web user in the Uk - That wouldn't be possible)...

I only have an offline version of the study to hand, but if you really are interestied in it, I suggest you get hold of a copy of the 'see it right' doccumentation produced by the RNIB...

aeiouy - I understand your response - but think that it was completly out of order.

I would love to hear where you heard that statistic from.

Accessibility is a massive issue in the UK, with firms haven been taken to court for not complying.

 

I guess Malachim is making the rounds ... not too much action on this thread
http://www.adsensechat.com/showthread.php?t=1812

 

My statement is asking if this is a polling of imparied internet or a polling of the general population? Get that I mean?

 

If it isn't the research your referring to, why did you post the link, and why did you quote some of the article which backed up your previous statement?

I don't mind being proved wrong, but stating statistics as facts then not being able to back them up is a bit poor.

I have a piece of paper next to me from NASA that says the moon is made of cheese, now unless I can really prove that to anyone else i'm not going to go round science forums quoting it as truth.

 

I read it from the website as 20% of the 193 disabled people being surveyed