But there are many physical products that can only be used by people without certain disabilities. For instance, cameras, mirrors, light bulbs and paintings require you to be sighted to get any utility from them. Headphones require you to be able to hear. Those might be extreme examples, but there are a huge number of things that you basically get zero utility out of if you don't have typical abilities in relevant areas. Should I not be allowed to sell a bicycle if I can't figure out a way to make it work for people who don't have 4 functioning limbs?
Most web sites can be made accessible simply by making them work normally and reasonably... it's generally the browser's job (and various other things like screenreaders) to make them accessible, assuming the web developer isn't doing something particularly weirdly. Isn't it?
It seems highly inefficient use of resources to have each site have to do a lot of work to support accessibility, especially if the sites are doing basic things like presenting documents. But if I make a web based paint program or charting app, what am I supposed to do for people who don't have sight? Does that even make sense?
I think you should actually read about accessibility requirements.
> Most web sites can be made accessible simply by making them work normally and reasonably... it's generally the browser's job (and various other things like screenreaders) to make them accessible, assuming the web developer isn't doing something particularly weirdly. Isn't it?
It's not the browsers legal responsibility to do so, no. It's the responsibility of the business to do that.
I'm not talking about whose legal responsibility it is, I'm talking about whose responsibility it makes sense for it to be. Anyway, if the browser did nothing to address accessibility, laws would be made to require them to do so.
It makes sense to address it universally, if possible, rather than case by case. Surely you agree that someone who simply puts a document on the web should not have to develop their own screen reader. Or should it just be businesses that are required to do so? That has obvious problems.
But there are many physical products that can only be used by people without certain disabilities. For instance, cameras, mirrors, light bulbs and paintings require you to be sighted to get any utility from them. Headphones require you to be able to hear. Those might be extreme examples, but there are a huge number of things that you basically get zero utility out of if you don't have typical abilities in relevant areas. Should I not be allowed to sell a bicycle if I can't figure out a way to make it work for people who don't have 4 functioning limbs?
Most web sites can be made accessible simply by making them work normally and reasonably... it's generally the browser's job (and various other things like screenreaders) to make them accessible, assuming the web developer isn't doing something particularly weirdly. Isn't it?
It seems highly inefficient use of resources to have each site have to do a lot of work to support accessibility, especially if the sites are doing basic things like presenting documents. But if I make a web based paint program or charting app, what am I supposed to do for people who don't have sight? Does that even make sense?