Norway to force some websites to follow usability guidelines(translate.google.com)
translate.google.com
Norway to force some websites to follow usability guidelines
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Funiversellutforming.difi.no%2Fveiledning%2Fnettsider%2Fkrav-til-nettlosninger%2Fkrav-wcag
7 comments
A solution to your objection is that other countries should follow suit, so everyone has a similar requirements.
For example, the US proposes similar requirements for public web sites. See http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=20130... and commentary at http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/58946-U-S-Propose... .
As the latter points out, "In 2012 the National Association of the Deaf filed a suit against Netflix, insisting the company provide closed captioning for its Internet video subscribers. The federal judge in the case became the first to rule that the ADA’s accessibility requirements apply to Internet-only businesses. Netflix agreed to caption all of its content by 2014."
Since the US ADA law already applies to public web sites, rules would help clarify what "public website" means, and what level of support is sufficient.
That seems to be similar to what Norway is doing, only Norway is a bit ahead of the US.
For example, the US proposes similar requirements for public web sites. See http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=20130... and commentary at http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/58946-U-S-Propose... .
As the latter points out, "In 2012 the National Association of the Deaf filed a suit against Netflix, insisting the company provide closed captioning for its Internet video subscribers. The federal judge in the case became the first to rule that the ADA’s accessibility requirements apply to Internet-only businesses. Netflix agreed to caption all of its content by 2014."
Since the US ADA law already applies to public web sites, rules would help clarify what "public website" means, and what level of support is sufficient.
That seems to be similar to what Norway is doing, only Norway is a bit ahead of the US.
A solution to your objection is that other countries should follow suit, so everyone has a similar requirements.
How does this help startups, which are often building things speculatively? That is, they're not even completely sure if the things they're working on will pan out for anyone.
Your solution is just to hobble everyone, and that strikes me as incredibly unjust. Everyone is born with different abilities. Some of us are able to do some things, and others of us are not. That's just a fact about the world, and it will always be that way.
Where we differ is what that fact means. You are relying on the premise that those of us that possess a given ability are born in hock, in a sense, to those that do not possess that ability. It's exactly this idea that I don't accept.
Now, I don't mean that we shouldn't have audible crosswalks on public streets, wheelchair ramps on government buildings, etc. Nor do I mean that it's wrong for people to privately work on assistive technologies, such as screen readers, closed captioning, etc., if that's something they wish to do.
What I am against is the idea that I, or anyone else, owes part of their lives (creative works are a huge part of a person's life) to redress someone else's misfortune, inability or disability, which they had absolutely no hand in creating themselves.
In the debate on "equality," some say that the only way to make us all truly equal is to hobble the able. Some people find a statement like that implausible, but after reading what you say, I have yet another data point that confirms it.
How does this help startups, which are often building things speculatively? That is, they're not even completely sure if the things they're working on will pan out for anyone.
Your solution is just to hobble everyone, and that strikes me as incredibly unjust. Everyone is born with different abilities. Some of us are able to do some things, and others of us are not. That's just a fact about the world, and it will always be that way.
Where we differ is what that fact means. You are relying on the premise that those of us that possess a given ability are born in hock, in a sense, to those that do not possess that ability. It's exactly this idea that I don't accept.
Now, I don't mean that we shouldn't have audible crosswalks on public streets, wheelchair ramps on government buildings, etc. Nor do I mean that it's wrong for people to privately work on assistive technologies, such as screen readers, closed captioning, etc., if that's something they wish to do.
What I am against is the idea that I, or anyone else, owes part of their lives (creative works are a huge part of a person's life) to redress someone else's misfortune, inability or disability, which they had absolutely no hand in creating themselves.
In the debate on "equality," some say that the only way to make us all truly equal is to hobble the able. Some people find a statement like that implausible, but after reading what you say, I have yet another data point that confirms it.
You have completely misunderstood my meaning. Q: How do we get rid of [slavery|child labor|80 hour work weeks|polluting the waterways] when no one else does? It will be horrible for our industries! A: Convince the other countries to get rid of [slavery|child labor|80 hour work weeks|polluting the waterways] as well. My answer is similar - if Norway's desire to support the human rights of the disabled is so burdensome that business is no longer possible, then a possible solution is to convince other countries to also support the rights of their disabled populations.
"often building things speculatively"
It really depends on what they are building, does it not? If it's the Norwegian equivalent of Amazon, with 150 people working on the project then that's different than a group of 4 undergraduates with a bright idea.
In the main thread, I pointed out that the actual Norwegian laws has exceptions for when there's undue burden. This parallels equivalent ADA exceptions in the US. (In the US: "Employers are not required to provide accommodation where doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business". In Norway, "There is an exemption from the requirement for universal design, if this causes an "undue burden" for the business, see § 13 subsection.")
Almost certainly small speculative startups will not be subject to this law, if it's anything like the ADA. To resolve that will require reading the Norwegian laws directly, which is beyond my powers. (What little I've found says that they are still working on the details.)
I'm hardly calling for a Harrison Bergeron solution. We've had the ADA in the US for 24 years and that hasn't hobbled the able. It's has required companies and owners to spend money (making money is a huge part of a person's life) to redress someone else's disabilities. Many people don't like the ADA for exactly the reasons you don't. It's still the law.
I pointed to successful lawsuits in the US which have established that web sites in the US are subject to the ADA requirements. I pointed to the rule making process which has started to establish what that means. Something equivalent will be happening in the US, either through regulations or piecemeal through lawsuits. Do you want your startup to be surprised by an ADA lawsuit someday? Or would you rather a set of rules where you can figure out when to start with ADA support, once your startup is successful enough?
"often building things speculatively"
It really depends on what they are building, does it not? If it's the Norwegian equivalent of Amazon, with 150 people working on the project then that's different than a group of 4 undergraduates with a bright idea.
In the main thread, I pointed out that the actual Norwegian laws has exceptions for when there's undue burden. This parallels equivalent ADA exceptions in the US. (In the US: "Employers are not required to provide accommodation where doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business". In Norway, "There is an exemption from the requirement for universal design, if this causes an "undue burden" for the business, see § 13 subsection.")
Almost certainly small speculative startups will not be subject to this law, if it's anything like the ADA. To resolve that will require reading the Norwegian laws directly, which is beyond my powers. (What little I've found says that they are still working on the details.)
I'm hardly calling for a Harrison Bergeron solution. We've had the ADA in the US for 24 years and that hasn't hobbled the able. It's has required companies and owners to spend money (making money is a huge part of a person's life) to redress someone else's disabilities. Many people don't like the ADA for exactly the reasons you don't. It's still the law.
I pointed to successful lawsuits in the US which have established that web sites in the US are subject to the ADA requirements. I pointed to the rule making process which has started to establish what that means. Something equivalent will be happening in the US, either through regulations or piecemeal through lawsuits. Do you want your startup to be surprised by an ADA lawsuit someday? Or would you rather a set of rules where you can figure out when to start with ADA support, once your startup is successful enough?
How do you start web businesses without massive investments under regimes like that? Imagine that I wanted to start a video website, say a competitor to Vimeo or YouTube. Under rules similar to these, I would have to provide closed captioning for every video uploaded by users (!), which would be utterly impossible to do.
Another hypothetical: I have created a piece of software that I want to sell. To let customers buy it, I want to create simple a website for my product, but now I have to adhere to a whole bunch of super-specific guidelines. Not being an experienced web designer, I would either have to hire an expensive web designer which could possibly cost more than I profit off my product, or break the law.
Another hypothetical: I have created a piece of software that I want to sell. To let customers buy it, I want to create simple a website for my product, but now I have to adhere to a whole bunch of super-specific guidelines. Not being an experienced web designer, I would either have to hire an expensive web designer which could possibly cost more than I profit off my product, or break the law.
That web site says "Solutions that are not covered by the regulations are ... Social media such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter spent in the private context. ... television media, including movies and network television."
A YouTube competitor sounds like it would fall under one or both of those exemptions.
A hypothetical for you: you want to sell quilts that you made yourself, and use the living room of your house to show and sell the quilts. But now that you're open to the public, you need to adhere a whole bunch of guidelines, like wheelchair access. You'll either have to hire an expensive carpenter or break the law.
I use this to point out that your example isn't unique to a web site, but is generally true of any accessibility requirement. That's why (looking around a bit) "There is an exemption from the requirement for universal design, if this causes an "undue burden" for the business, see § 13 subsection."
Or in Norwegian: Det er gjort unntak fra kravet til universell utforming, dersom dette medfører en «uforholdsmessig byrde» for virksomheten, jf.§ 13 tredje ledd.
You'll have to track down what that means. In the US context, that usually means that a single person with a small web site - or someone selling quilts from their home - is not subject to the same ADA requirements as, say, NetFlix.
A YouTube competitor sounds like it would fall under one or both of those exemptions.
A hypothetical for you: you want to sell quilts that you made yourself, and use the living room of your house to show and sell the quilts. But now that you're open to the public, you need to adhere a whole bunch of guidelines, like wheelchair access. You'll either have to hire an expensive carpenter or break the law.
I use this to point out that your example isn't unique to a web site, but is generally true of any accessibility requirement. That's why (looking around a bit) "There is an exemption from the requirement for universal design, if this causes an "undue burden" for the business, see § 13 subsection."
Or in Norwegian: Det er gjort unntak fra kravet til universell utforming, dersom dette medfører en «uforholdsmessig byrde» for virksomheten, jf.§ 13 tredje ledd.
You'll have to track down what that means. In the US context, that usually means that a single person with a small web site - or someone selling quilts from their home - is not subject to the same ADA requirements as, say, NetFlix.
Which of the 35 do you think are so difficult to deal with that startups will have to hire consultants or professional web design firms to deal with?
Most looked to me as things that are fairly easy to do, and fairly easy to tell if you got them right.
Most looked to me as things that are fairly easy to do, and fairly easy to tell if you got them right.
This is based on WCAG 2, which is for accessibility, i.e. techniques intended to make pages usable for people with disabilities, but these are not requirements for "usability" in general (as in user experience/design of the page).
US has a similar law that applies to Federal agencies - Section 508:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_Amendment_to_the_Re...
US has a similar law that applies to Federal agencies - Section 508:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_Amendment_to_the_Re...
Aren't HN titles supposed to be the original title? The h1 is "Krav til nettløsninger (WCAG)" / "Requirements for network solutions (WCAG)".
In this case a substitution may be necessary to giv an idea of what it's about, but let's please try to be accurate. The requirements apply only to business websites, not to all websites. Regulation of business to protect the public, or in this case to provide for disabled people, is a good thing. Imposing these requirements on non-commercial, civil-society websites would be a serious abridgement of freedom of speech.
In this case a substitution may be necessary to giv an idea of what it's about, but let's please try to be accurate. The requirements apply only to business websites, not to all websites. Regulation of business to protect the public, or in this case to provide for disabled people, is a good thing. Imposing these requirements on non-commercial, civil-society websites would be a serious abridgement of freedom of speech.
Indeed. This is a tough case because the original title is unclear, and the poster's title was wrong and baity. I'll change "all" to "some", at least.
In cases like this, it's helpful when a user suggests a better title. Same for urls.
In cases like this, it's helpful when a user suggests a better title. Same for urls.
These guidelines does not apply to all websites but (and I translate) "private and government enterprises, communities and organizations that uses the web as it's main channel for distribution of information to the public". But I'd tend to agree that it's a bit far fetched to force on any kind of guidelines.
That's how things play out sometimes - reminds me of how contractors here are forced to build all new houses with certain dimensions on bathrooms, halls, and kitchen to accommodate handicapped people. This again have led to higher prices of housing.
FYI, FWIW: Canadian federal web sites are subject to similar requirements - and they now have an open source toolkit to make this easier.
The government site for the toolkit is probably the best place to learn more: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ws-nw/wa-aw/wet-boew/index-eng.asp
The government site for the toolkit is probably the best place to learn more: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ws-nw/wa-aw/wet-boew/index-eng.asp
Next up, "Norway forces everyone to have good taste in music".
This is just yet another example of the insanity of governments and the world we live in. The only way governments affect societies is through force, coercion. Any law is a command, and you will be punished for disobeying it, regardless of whether it makes any sense whatsoever.. and only a handful of people see any problems with this.
This is just yet another example of the insanity of governments and the world we live in. The only way governments affect societies is through force, coercion. Any law is a command, and you will be punished for disobeying it, regardless of whether it makes any sense whatsoever.. and only a handful of people see any problems with this.
Steely Dan FTW
In my eyes, this is complete and utter madness, which will heavily discourage Internet entrepeneurship in Norway. Would you found a web startup if you were forced to hire a compliance consultant or professional web design firm in order to not break the law?
Some more information here: http://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev...