<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top e-Book Reader Makers Contest US Accessibility Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?feed=rss2&#038;p=919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?p=919</link>
	<description>Access to technology for all</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2018 16:32:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Seager</title>
		<link>http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?p=919&#038;cpage=1#comment-6915</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff Seager]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?p=919#comment-6915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I do hope the request is denied. Accessibility solutions have been with us from the beginning of the graphical web, their importance emphatically emphasized by Sir Berners-Lee from the start, and these aren&#039;t the first nor likely the last products to fail because they went off on a proprietary tangent that bypasses inherently accessible XML, XHTML and HTML. Ignorance of the relevant laws is no excuse, and never has been a valid excuse for legal noncompliance.

The manufacturers&#039; petition is a reflection of a much larger problem, which is the continuing tendency to design and engineer without consideration of accessibility, then to try to retrofit in some distant tomorrow. Accessibility has to be worked into the primary design criteria at the outset of any project. Otherwise, it&#039;s like pouring the concrete footers after erecting the roof. I&#039;m a bit fanatical about that, but only because it isn&#039;t rocket science; it should be common knowledge and common courtesy.

If it isn&#039;t accessible, it isn&#039;t well designed. If people want to remain competitive, they&#039;ll have to bring a better product to market. It&#039;s that simple, but time and again we see that corners will be cut if the standards aren&#039;t upheld.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do hope the request is denied. Accessibility solutions have been with us from the beginning of the graphical web, their importance emphatically emphasized by Sir Berners-Lee from the start, and these aren&#8217;t the first nor likely the last products to fail because they went off on a proprietary tangent that bypasses inherently accessible XML, XHTML and HTML. Ignorance of the relevant laws is no excuse, and never has been a valid excuse for legal noncompliance.</p>
<p>The manufacturers&#8217; petition is a reflection of a much larger problem, which is the continuing tendency to design and engineer without consideration of accessibility, then to try to retrofit in some distant tomorrow. Accessibility has to be worked into the primary design criteria at the outset of any project. Otherwise, it&#8217;s like pouring the concrete footers after erecting the roof. I&#8217;m a bit fanatical about that, but only because it isn&#8217;t rocket science; it should be common knowledge and common courtesy.</p>
<p>If it isn&#8217;t accessible, it isn&#8217;t well designed. If people want to remain competitive, they&#8217;ll have to bring a better product to market. It&#8217;s that simple, but time and again we see that corners will be cut if the standards aren&#8217;t upheld.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
