About the
GCC Web

Accessibility for All vs.
Technological Freedom

For Accessibility for All:	ADA stands for Americans with Disabilities Act. And what that covers is the sight-impaired being able to go through special browsers and special software, and they're able to go on all the sites that are made ADA compliant. There's a little bit of special programming that's required. Just so you know, it's not just for the handicapped. It's also for our low-end browsers, Netscape 2 - 3, which is the majority of our at-risk students who don't have the income to buy a high-end computer with the higher-end-running software. So it's not just Americans with disabilities -- it's also a large portion of our at-risk students, the students that may or may not be able to get on the Web and do their research using a standard browser... What we try to do as the Maricopa Community College District is get the widest audience that we can. We want to get everybody wired. We want to get everybody on the Web. That's what our purpose is; that is our point. By complying to ADA, we're able to do that very quickly and very efficiently once we know how to do it. To get the widest audience possible, which means more dollars in the coffer. Which is basically what we're here for. We're here to put people in the classrooms no matter what their income level, their disability, things of that nature. We're there to put 'em in the classes.
For Technological Freedom:	OK, you talked about ease of development and reaching the widest number of audience and putting students in the classroom. Ease of development? I could take a software package like Front Page 2000, Dreamweaver, Flash 5... And I can, spending a couple of hundred dollars on software, with limited staff, produce good, accessible -- or not accessible -- good, flashy sites that we can draw students to. With banner ads, we can reach our younger population. Very, very few of the people out there now have the lower end machines, lower end browsers. The students we have tracked are automatically wanting to go into education. They have the higher level machines. They have the higher end browsers. We're still wanting to reach a younger audience to draw those students in. If we have some graphics and maybe a couple of banner ads that advertise some of our special programs, especially in technology, we're gonna draw more students into our colleges.
For Accessibility for All:	It is true -- the sites that I do produce, being ADA compliant, are a little drearier, are a little more dry... [audience laughs] But the important part of it is: First of all, I don't need high-end developers. Flash 5, Dreamweaver, NetObjects Fusion -- the higher end software packages -- also require extensive training to do those flashy sites and the cool effects. It takes a lot of work and it takes a lot of creativity. With the "Elliot-Cherner-dry-as-toast" sites, they're very simple to produce, they're very easy to make changes, very easy to navigate. And that's what the whole point is: to get as many people who can actually get into the sites. The "bell and whistle" era of web development, hopefully, in my eyes, is coming to a close where we can get down and do some business.
For Technological Freedom:	Oh, the bells and whistles are just ramping up. With the advent of the new software, I take exception to "easily" putting out sites that are ADA compliant. You're going to need -- to, say, to put out a site the size of Glendale, OK? -- you're gonna need a team of three or four people just to make sure that it is "accessible," to make sure that the information is organized in a logical manner, to meet those "accessible" guidelines; when I can take one very talented, very gifted programmer and a really good software package, crank that out in half the time. It looks better. It's a marketing tool. I've saved the campus money budget-wise. I'm also attracting a wider audience.
For Accessibility for All:	As far as attracting a wider audience: You may attract more people per. But as far as the width of the audience? We're not attracting the people. At this time, right now, within our country, there's in excess -- last census, was an excess -- of six people who can not function sight-wise properly to get on the Web. And I am not talking about seniors 65 and over. I am talking about birth to 35. Some form of impairment will keep them from the Web. What's to stop them, especially as we ramp up at many of the colleges with on-line classes? We're actually denying them service! We're denying the ADA people. We're denying the disabled. We're denying people with the low-end browsers and the limited income access to an education which is what we are here to provide. The hardest part for me to swallow: yes, my sites are dry -- yes, my sites are boring -- but are our sites actually marketing tools? At this point I would say no. Our sites are education devices, in a lot of places. If you go into almost any one of the District web sites: Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Rio -- they are educational. They will say, "Go on-line! Register for your classes!" We can do all this stuff on-line from the convenience of our home. If we have ADA compliance.
For Technological Freedom:	That segment of our population who are visually impaired... We have the newer tools to put up the "Carol-Myers-flashy-let's-bring-em-in-the-classroom" site. They also have the newer tools to be able to access those sites.
For Accessibility for All:	Oooo... [audience laughs.] My point with that, a lot of people as far as low end browsers -- a lot of them don't have automobiles to use to come to the colleges to use the high-tech areas. A lot of them want to do the education strictly from home, strictly with what they have, strictly with what they can afford, and strictly with what they can use. If I were contacted by a college -- and I'm just being me -- If I were contacted by a college that says, "Hey! You can register on-line... You can do your classes on-line... Maximum convenience... Maximum education... Minimum inconvenience... Continue your career..." -- Sound familiar to anybody around here? -- and I'm told, "Oh, but by the way, you need a $2000 software investment," or, excuse me, "a $2000 hardware and software investment," just to be able to do it. "Oh, but it's only 35 bucks a credit hour" -- once you've spent the 2000 bucks. Oops!
For Technological Freedom:	But even using... OK, you can still draw the people, they can still get the education they need remotely, because when developing the sites with the fancier software packages, you still have links. The people can get the links. They can get to the pages. Maybe they don't see the fancy graphics and the banner ads that we're using to bring people here. You admitted we will reach a wider audience. Indeed we will. Because people will go, "Wow, isn't that cool," and that will make them want to look a little deeper. Insofar as education remotely, as I said: There are links there. They just won't be able to see the graphic whiz-bangs. But they can get around and navigate and get to their course materials just fine.
For Accessibility for All:	That's true... But they won't get the maximum impact of the sites. The way the lower end browsers work, we can still see links. But if there's.. You have several pitfalls involved. If you have a graphic, and we'll say that it's an animated graphic which all of you see on the Web, that says "Gee! Special offer, today only, if you call this number, we'll give you 20 bucka off your tuition." Oops! Well, now we've just denied every disabled person from responding to that ad. Where I'm talking about -- one of the areas that I try to deal with is -- when I build my web sites is, (a) is it accessible, (b) how many people am I gonna upset -- as far as disabled, as far as don't have the high end browsers... It only takes one phone call to certain organizations, and they'll fire a lawsuit off and it won't cost them a cent. But it'll cost the District thousands and thousands of dollars to fight a frivolous lawsuit over a site we built in ten minutes. That's what I'm saying: If you build it ADA compliant from the ground up, it'll be better.
For Technological Freedom:	No. No. No. [audience laughs.]
[The group of attendees is invited to contribute any point they wish to add to either side of the debate.]
Group Contributor 1:	My experience with Macromedia products such as Flash and Dreamweaver is that they are becoming ADA compliant, so pretty soon we can have the best of both worlds.
For Accessibility for All:	Stop it.
Group Contributor 2:	If our sites are not accessible, then students have no choice but to come to the campus to get the information. That's not really serving our students.
For Technological Freedom:	Ah, but once we get them here and once we get them on campus and they see the wonderful things we have, we've kept them. After all: Marketing, marketing, marketing.
Group Contributor 3:	Most students are using newer computers since they are cheaper. Even a computer that is a year old should still be able to see the information created using the software packages you mentioned.
For Technological Freedom:	Oh, I agree. And if you're going to get something today, then you're going to get something that will be able to read the sites created with the fancy software packages.
[The debate period ends, and the group's discussion and reporting activity in response to this issue is initiated.] Write an additional rebuttal for either side Proceed to: More Commentary on ADA Compliance Issues Return to: Introduction to ADA Compliance Issues Danger in the Construction Zone Contents WebDev 2000 Contents