getsat

The biggest thing I'm struggling with is finding a product idea I can even test against the potential market.

But there is no legislation that says my website must be publicly accessible. I could randomly return 403 errors, or only block people using Firefox, or only block people from the state of California.

When there's legislation saying that my website must not exclude people, then I'll consider accessibility.

My car does between 12 (city) and 28 (highway). Ugh.

If I whip up a HTML5/CSS3 website over the weekend that does nothing to be accessible, is it still technically accessible? The entire document is readable with a screenreader even though the contents may be out of order if your reader does not support CSS (or even a certain CSS revision).

What if I use Facebook Connect exclusively to let people login? That's not gonna work with a screen reader.

Who, exactly, will be judging my site to ensure compliance with this legislation? Are they really going to ensure compliance of every page on every website?

Nothing against disabled people (and I, like most people probably do, have some in my extended family), but if I'm building a lean startup and getting stuff out to market quickly, I'm not going to do an accessibility pass. Sorry. If this does become law, you'll start to see Internet entrepreneurs move to more accommodating countries like Singapore as Western countries continue to legislate everything in sight.

If I throw up a proof of concept website in a weekend as a test, it takes off, and I work on it full-time just to make sure it's not exploding/falling over as it scales, and I don't go back and make everything 100% accessible to 100% of my users, am I really discriminating against the disabled?

Am I obligated to cut into my revenue (if _any_) to make the site accessible to users who will not be or are not a valuable asset to me? What if it's a video site and I don't provide closed captioning? Do I have to caption all my videos do the deaf can watch them? Do I have to provide complete transcripts for every blind person?

I'm not intentionally discriminating, I'm just unable to justify allocation of my development time/resources to that particularly area.

I don't think it's a moral problem since I'm not going into it with a "fuck the handicapped" mentality. It's a result of allocation of extremely constrained resources.

(Note: I agree with you. I'm just arguing here for fun. This is unenforceable, anyways, and, if it did become enforced, companies would just move their sites/online companies offshore.)

Should you be? Yes.

Do you need to be? No.

I can't spend an extra 10% (or 5%... or even 1%) of development time for the 0.001% of my users who are disabled or using screen readers. The return on investment is just not favorable enough.

Not hating on OP or his site, just sayin'.

In San Francisco, every 10th car is a 3 series. I wish I was joking.

I guess you missed this post that highlights a few of them: http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-de...

I agree on using what you enjoy using, but implying PHP isn't riddled with flaws is absurd.

  >Implying other people are new
  >Having a green username

10.04 systems hang after 200+ days due to a kernel bug. If you install the latest kernel, which addresses the issue, after 200+ days processes still no longer report any CPU usage.

10.04 itself was a joke.

That mentioned 4-5 months will, statistically, be for nought if you don't do the important marketing/prep work ahead of time.

  curl -I -A "Firefox" "www.facebook.com/?redirect=somebadlink.com" | grep Location

  sudo -i
  # do root work
  exit # or ^D

They typically also use and/or instead of &&/|| and potentially introduce subtle bugs into their code when the former would suffice.