Easy Reader

On WaSP today, Derek wrote an incredibly poignant post about the NFB lawsuit against Target. In fact, I thought it so relevant to the interactive work we do at Cronin and Company (the ad agency I work for), that I forwarded a copy of it to everyone who works there. The reaction was, for the most part, pretty good (at least from those that read it), but there’s always at least one person who just doesn’t get it.

I received the following feedback via email from one of the higher-ups in our company (who shall remain nameless):

Is Target forcing blind people to shop there? If they don’t does Target hurt them in some way?

If it doesn’t meet web standards, why don’t blind people just shop somewhere else? Is Target funded by the government?

If Target doesn’t want to change their web site why should I get upset about it? (I don’t hold any Target stock either.)

I couldn’t belive what I was hearing. What an unhealthy attitude.

I sent him an email back. Perhaps it was a bit harsh—though not as harsh as my first draft—but this is something I’m passionate about. I thought I’d share it because I think accessibility is dismissed as “unimportant” far too often:

I imagine you’ve heard of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA and related laws ensure equal treatment for disabled persons in terms of access, housing, employment, voting, etc. Do you consider wheelchair ramps pointless? Handicapped doors? Elevators? Just curious.

The changes necessary to make a website accessible—in a manner similar to the way “brick and mortar” businesses are required by law to be—are not great at all. In fact, we do it routinely with every site we build (at least every one I oversee) at no additional charge and it takes no additional time, just a little forethought. So cost can’t be an excuse to hide behind.

But if you want another reason to do it, consider SEO (Search Engine Optimization). Google (and all web spidering applications, for that matter) are the greatest consumers of websites in existence. And they don’t see the pretty pictures and they don’t use a mouse. Semantically marked-up, accessible, web standards-based documents routinely generate higher search rankings than non-semantic/standards/accessible ones because the content is accessible.

Then there’s the cost savings in maintenance, the cost savings in server storage space, the cost savings in bandwidth usage, the faster page downloads for your users, and the ability to deploy the same content to multiple devices/media—print, TVs, PDAs and cellphones, just to name a few. In terms of benefits, the list goes on and on, and all of these come at no additional cost when you use web standards.

If you don’t see the point in making the effort for selfless reasons, perhaps these will make more sense.

I realize that most of you reading this have, more likely than not, already joined the accessibility bandwagon. Some selflessly even. I just needed a moment to publicly rant. Thanks.

In a recent issue of Game Informer, I read an interesting news piece on the upcoming PS3, but its significance goes far beyond that system and even the world of video games. In fact, it applies to all digital media.

It seems SCE Australia recently lost a court case involving the use of mod chips to play foreign titles. Current video game systems (and indeed the DVD movie industry) use region encoding to keep certain movies and games out of certain areas, but the court ruled region encoding was “an articficial trade barrier that restricted consumers’ choice.” The ruling impacts only those Aussie gamers who wish to play worldwide games and the descision was obviously made in observance of Australia’s copyright laws, but why did it take a court ruling to make it so? It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Of course, mod-ing does still void your warranty, but once that’s up, what skin is it off the video game industry’s teeth if you play a foreign game? They still get paid. It’s not like you’re stealing from anyone. The same should go for movies. Why should I not be able to buy a copy of Delicatessen on DVD simply because I live in the US? I bought a copy on Laser Disk back in the day and the DVD is available in Europe. Granted, I’ve got the damn PAL/NTSC thing to worry about, but really, why do we need region encoding? There’s no such thing for CDs and it works out great for everyone. We can listen to music from anywhere and there is very big money in it for record shops that stock import CDs (at least in the US, most imports run upwards of $30 for a full-length CD). Why shouldn’t the same go for movies and video games?

Alright, so I’ve probably beaten that horse to death now. On to the second interesting little factoid in the article… the one that really scares me: Sony has apparently developed a technology which could be used to stop an individual from playing used games. The technology, developed by PlayStation creator Ken Kutaragi, would encrypt an authentication code on the disk, making it playable only on the first system it is played on. There’s no word on whether this technology will be employed in the PS3, but the sheer fact that something like this has been developed is absurd.

An argument against this technology could probably be made on the grounds of Fair Use here in the US. After all, if you own two of the same video game systems (Perhaps your parents are divorced and you have an XBox at each parent’s house or you’re really lazy and have one upstairs and one downstairs. I don’t know, work with me here…), why should you not be able to play the game you paid $50 for on both? Based on the Australian ruling and its focus on consumer choice, I imagine the Aussies would probably kill it as well, but did anyone stop to think of the repercussions such a technology would have?

Such technology has the power to kill the video game rental industry as well as friendly borrowing, both of which I am sure trigger a good portion of new video game sales to begin with. So not only would it crush the aftermarket (used video game sales which, one assumes, is the target), but it runs the risk of killing the market as well. Then there’s the environmental impact. Think about it: millions of games (and their packaging) rendered useless once they’re done being played. That’s as good an idea as those disposable DVDs Disney came up with. And, of course, not everyone can afford to plunk down $40-50 for a brand new game, so it would likely cut the available market considerably. Do people even think about this shit?

OK, perhaps I’m being just a tad alarmist here. Surely a mod would be available within weeks if not days to disable such “protection,” but I just wish people would think about the consequences of their creations before building them at all.

That beautiful bastion of standards-based e-commerce, Karova, has gotten a face lift. Mr. Malarkey deserves many kudos for yet another rich, engaging and playful design. And if you think the sales materials look good, you should see the store management dashboard. I was offered a sneak peek and couldn’t help but fawn over its sophisticated simplicity. It’s not only usable, but it makes managing a web shop (dare I say it) kinda fun. For a little background on the redesign, read Andy’s writeup.

Now if only we could find a suitable partner to bring their product to the US (hint, hint).

I just saw a copy of the latest issue of DMNews and Dave’s hard work garnered the Wadsworth Atheneum a feature story and Cronin and Company some major kudos. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

An online campaign initiated by the 161-year-old museum and developed by Glastonbury, CT, ad agency Cronin and Company Inc. doubled visits to the site at www.wadsworthatheneum.org. Components included a SurrealPainter Web tool, banner ads and the seeding of blogs.

Central to the campaign is the tool at www.wadsworthatheneum.org/painter. Visitors through Dec. 18 can choose from various colorful backgrounds and objects, then flip, copy, layer or scale them. Once completed, the online artwork can be titled, printed, published and e-mailed to family and friends.

Be sure to make your own surrealist painting, while you still can.

Today’s chosen site: Canadian Pharmacy

One of the web’s preeminent marketing websites, MarketingSherpa, has just published an article which may start a web standards stampede. The focus is Firefox, but the underlying message is standards, standards and more standards:

Your more savvy Web designers are likely all agog over Firefox, because its support of Web Standards makes it easier to design and maintain effective Web pages. …

For marketers, these standards are so darn important because they affect the bottom line: your budget. In fact, The Web Standards Project … estimates that before today’s growing lack of support for standards, the “fractured browser market” was adding at least 25% to the cost of developing Web sites. And that’s just one tiny piece of the revenue picture.

“Housing construction, electrical wiring, automobile design, all these benefit from design standards,” says Scott McDaniel, MarketingSherpa’s own Internet Director. “Web site construction is maturing in much the same way.”

The author, Heidi Anderson, even tallies her “6 Business Benefits of ‘Web Standards-based’ design”:

1. Increased search engine optimization
2. Proper content presentation, including shopping carts and “contact us” forms
3. Decreased development and maintenance costs
4. Lower bandwidth usage
5. Faster download times
6. Web viewing beyond the computer (your site on wireless devices & RSS)

It’s nice to see marketers taking note of all we can do for them. Now roll up your shirt sleeves and get to work.