Unfortunately that's more what I was thinking was the MS motivation here.

I'm happy to see this too and also hope that FF and others follow this cue. But I don't think it's for the reasons others are mentioning here. To me, this is a case of MS hoping to head off Government intervention in this area. Even the folks on Capitol Hill have come to realize that tracking in its current form is a problem. There was a bureaucrat the other day talking about needing to address the "Flash cookie problem" and saying they're working with Adobe on it. This is just like the major sport bike makers all suddenly agreeing that 180mph is fast enough for anyone - right about the time congress started making noise about limiting the top speed of bikes (after the Hayabusa approached 200mph).

I'm glad for what they're doing, though I'm not ready to trust them to implement this honestly.

I think you're talking about Section 508 of the American with Disabilities Act. And yes, it can apply to more than US Government web sites. Target found that out the hard way after refusing to provide alt tags and other accessible changes to their web site. After getting slammed with a $6 million judgement, no one else is bothering to refute what has become established case law.

I might also add that Section 508 covers much more than screen readers and javascript.

In Soviet Russia friends make you.

> Piracy is making a copy of an item

Tell that to the people whose ships get hijacked.

Only if the MOD budget has been increased enough so that it can afford a sub-standard starter handle to do MAD.

Truer words have not been spoken in a long time. I wish I couldn't relate to pretty much that whole thing.

son of a!! 2997 is a bit far into the future isn't it? :)

Immah let you finish AC, but AC had one best posts ending in an ellipsis of all time.

"Microsoft: if you want to beat Google, find a way to develop a completely open search ranking system."

And this to me is the most delicious irony in this stinky stew. I think MS is perfectly capable of developing such a thing, but they will invariably find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. I remember hearing a while back that searching for Linux with the MS search engine produced thousands of results while searching the same term on Google produced tens of millions of hits.
 
Once you've demonstrated that you are willing to sacrifice results and accuracy for market share, it's hard to earn back that trust. MS has stepped into this mess over and over and doesn't seem to learn from their mistake.
 
So yeah, I agree. MS just has to build a superior product to succeed. Too bad that seems to be the path less taken.

It's not like 508 is something new. They're just revising the guidelines that have been out there for years. I would think by now all Government agencies have gotten clued in as to how to satisfy 508 requirements. (Or they know how to get waivers approved.)

I agree completely. If you use a word like "microprocessor" in a sentence, then you've pretty much shot the RGL of that sentence unless you just have one or two other words in it. RGLs are meaningless in technical material, and not all of the web is commercial or entertainment sites.

There are lots of workarounds to make things accessible, like providing plain-text alternatives through a link to equivalent content. As I said in another post, Section 508 is only the law for (US) Government-procured systems and applications. You can even find workarounds for multimedia and Flash to make them compliant, though this is easier if you start out with accessibility in mind rather than trying to change a complex site or system that's already out there. The regulations also allow for "undue burden" exceptions where compliance is not always practical.

I agree with your last point about increasing the incentives for better product development. The devil hides in the details of how to get there, though.

I couldn't disagree more.

I guess they're not worth your time and trouble as long as you can get to most of what you want. Nearly one in four Americans has some sort of disability, so savvy publishers who don't want to lose out on a big chunk of marketshare find it worthwhile to comply.

In the case of commerical sites, vendors find that disabled users are a loyal lot and will keep frequenting sites and businesses that support their needs. And they won't waste time struggling with a non-compliant site if the competition is compliant.

The argument that this puts undue burden on content providers is BS. The same thing was said about forcing car makers to include seat belts, and on and on. Like the cutouts in sidewalks, not just disabled people benefit from the efforts to accommodate their needs; the general public does, too.

Lastly, while it is well intentioned for general use, 508 applies only to things being provided to the (US) Government. If you didn't factor in the costs of accessibility into your bid, then too bad for you.