

Norway to force some websites to follow usability guidelines - Aqwis
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Funiversellutforming.difi.no%2Fveiledning%2Fnettsider%2Fkrav-til-nettlosninger%2Fkrav-wcag

======
Aqwis
As far as I understand, the law forces every Norwegian business which
primarily communicates with its users through its web page (which includes all
sorts of businesses) to follow the 35 specific usability guidelines. The
policy will be in effect from July 1.

In my eyes, this is complete and utter madness, which will heavily discourage
Internet entrepeneurship in Norway. Would you found a web startup if you were
forced to hire a compliance consultant or professional web design firm in
order to not break the law?

Some more information here:
[http://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev...](http://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fokonomi%2FTvinger-
alle-virksomheter-til-a-skaffe-seg-nye-
nettsider-7526952.html%23.U0Aogvl_spU&edit-text=)

~~~
dalke
A solution to your objection is that other countries should follow suit, so
everyone has a similar requirements.

For example, the US proposes similar requirements for public web sites. See
[http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=20130...](http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1190-AA61)
and commentary at [http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/58946-U-S-
Propose...](http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/58946-U-S-Proposes-ADA-
Compliance-for-Ecommerce-Websites) .

As the latter points out, "In 2012 the National Association of the Deaf filed
a suit against Netflix, insisting the company provide closed captioning for
its Internet video subscribers. The federal judge in the case became the first
to rule that the ADA’s accessibility requirements apply to Internet-only
businesses. Netflix agreed to caption all of its content by 2014."

Since the US ADA law already applies to public web sites, rules would help
clarify what "public website" means, and what level of support is sufficient.

That seems to be similar to what Norway is doing, only Norway is a bit ahead
of the US.

~~~
maxharris
_A solution to your objection is that other countries should follow suit, so
everyone has a similar requirements._

How does this help startups, which are often building things _speculatively_?
That is, they're not even completely sure if the things they're working on
will pan out for anyone.

Your solution is just to hobble everyone, and that strikes me as incredibly
unjust. Everyone is born with different abilities. Some of us are able to do
some things, and others of us are not. That's just a fact about the world, and
it will always be that way.

Where we differ is what that fact means. You are relying on the premise that
those of us that possess a given ability are born in hock, in a sense, to
those that do not possess that ability. It's exactly this idea that I don't
accept.

Now, I don't mean that we shouldn't have audible crosswalks on public streets,
wheelchair ramps on government buildings, etc. Nor do I mean that it's wrong
for people to privately work on assistive technologies, such as screen
readers, closed captioning, etc., if that's something they wish to do.

What I am against is the idea that I, or anyone else, _owes_ part of their
lives (creative works are a huge part of a person's life) to redress someone
else's misfortune, inability or disability, which they had absolutely no hand
in creating themselves.

In the debate on "equality," some say that the only way to make us all truly
equal is to hobble the able. Some people find a statement like that
implausible, but after reading what you say, I have yet another data point
that confirms it.

~~~
dalke
You have completely misunderstood my meaning. Q: How do we get rid of
[slavery|child labor|80 hour work weeks|polluting the waterways] when no one
else does? It will be horrible for our industries! A: Convince the other
countries to get rid of [slavery|child labor|80 hour work weeks|polluting the
waterways] as well. My answer is similar - if Norway's desire to support the
human rights of the disabled is so burdensome that business is no longer
possible, then a possible solution is to convince other countries to also
support the rights of their disabled populations.

"often building things speculatively"

It really depends on what they are building, does it not? If it's the
Norwegian equivalent of Amazon, with 150 people working on the project then
that's different than a group of 4 undergraduates with a bright idea.

In the main thread, I pointed out that the actual Norwegian laws has
exceptions for when there's undue burden. This parallels equivalent ADA
exceptions in the US. (In the US: "Employers are not required to provide
accommodation where doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business".
In Norway, "There is an exemption from the requirement for universal design,
if this causes an "undue burden" for the business, see § 13 subsection.")

Almost certainly small speculative startups will not be subject to this law,
if it's anything like the ADA. To resolve that will require reading the
Norwegian laws directly, which is beyond my powers. (What little I've found
says that they are still working on the details.)

I'm hardly calling for a Harrison Bergeron solution. We've had the ADA in the
US for 24 years and that hasn't hobbled the able. It's _has_ required
companies and owners to spend money (making money is a huge part of a person's
life) to redress someone else's disabilities. Many people don't like the ADA
for exactly the reasons you don't. It's still the law.

I pointed to successful lawsuits in the US which have established that web
sites in the US are subject to the ADA requirements. I pointed to the rule
making process which has started to establish what that means. Something
equivalent _will_ be happening in the US, either through regulations or
piecemeal through lawsuits. Do you want your startup to be surprised by an ADA
lawsuit someday? Or would you rather a set of rules where you can figure out
when to start with ADA support, once your startup is successful enough?

------
pornel
This is based on WCAG 2, which is for _accessibility_ , i.e. techniques
intended to make pages usable for people with disabilities, but these are
_not_ requirements for "usability" in general (as in user experience/design of
the page).

US has a similar law that applies to Federal agencies - Section
508:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_Amendment_to_the_Re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_Amendment_to_the_Rehabilitation_Act_of_1973)

------
ds9
Aren't HN titles supposed to be the original title? The h1 is "Krav til
nettløsninger (WCAG)" / "Requirements for network solutions (WCAG)".

In this case a substitution may be necessary to giv an idea of what it's
about, but let's please try to be accurate. The requirements apply only to
_business_ websites, not to _all_ websites. Regulation of business to protect
the public, or in this case to provide for disabled people, is a good thing.
Imposing these requirements on non-commercial, civil-society websites would be
a serious abridgement of freedom of speech.

~~~
dang
Indeed. This is a tough case because the original title is unclear, and the
poster's title was wrong and baity. I'll change "all" to "some", at least.

In cases like this, it's helpful when a user suggests a better title. Same for
urls.

------
larsmak
These guidelines does not apply to all websites but (and I translate) "private
and government enterprises, communities and organizations that uses the web as
it's main channel for distribution of information to the public". But I'd tend
to agree that it's a bit far fetched to force on any kind of guidelines.
That's how things play out sometimes - reminds me of how contractors here are
forced to build all new houses with certain dimensions on bathrooms, halls,
and kitchen to accommodate handicapped people. This again have led to higher
prices of housing.

------
PeterWhittaker
FYI, FWIW: Canadian federal web sites are subject to similar requirements -
and they now have an open source toolkit to make this easier.

The government site for the toolkit is probably the best place to learn more:
[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ws-nw/wa-aw/wet-boew/index-eng.asp](http://www.tbs-
sct.gc.ca/ws-nw/wa-aw/wet-boew/index-eng.asp)

------
whatevsbro
Next up, "Norway forces everyone to have good taste in music".

This is just yet another example of the insanity of governments and the world
we live in. The only way governments _affect_ societies is through _force_ ,
coercion. Any law is a command, and you will be punished for disobeying it,
regardless of whether it makes any sense whatsoever.. and only a handful of
people see any problems with this.

~~~
mteinum
Steely Dan FTW

