Category — Random Ramblings

What percentage of people use the closed captioning function on their TVs at home? The technology has been standardized to the point where it would be preposterous to broadcast without closed captioning. TV plays a pivotal role in home entertainment and news. Why shouldn’t it be accessible to those with disabilities? In today’s fast growing technological environment, it is clear to see that the use computers and more importantly the internet, play an important role in the lives of everyday people. The span of information and functionality on the web is almost to the point of necessity. We use it to find jobs, to do work, to learn and participate in school, to communicate, to share, and to entertain ourselves. When compared to what people use TV for, it’s hard to imagine that the same standards don’t apply.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has worked hard to push the standardization of web accessibility. With the creation of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), the W3C has put its best foot forward in educating business and web developers of the importance of web accessibility. Their website acts as a hub for design resources and best practices, as well as a forum for solving complex web accessibility challenges. New challenges arise along with the wide adoption of new technology that focuses on interactive experiences for the typical web user by manipulating content on the client’s end. JavaScript, AJAX, and Flash heavy websites prove to be a challenge to those who require the aid of assisting technology in order experience the content on the page.

No one can dispute the need for wide acceptance and implementation of web accessibility standards. There are about 60 million people in the U.S. alone who cannot utilize a computer in order to use the internet in a normal fashion. This is no shortage of users that can be simply neglected when running a business online. The question is then, why are more companies not investing proper standards compliant development? I speculate that the answer has to do with major flaws in the typical web design life cycle.

The first, simply being oversight in the planning stages. Many successful internet based companies don’t start with standard iterative design process. Depending on the product, the focus is either on some innovative back-end functionality, or flashy front-end development that draws attention. As these products become successful, new version as built on old version until so much time and money has been put into it that a complete overhaul and redesign for overlooked accessibility standardization would be far too expensive. The best way to solve this type of problem is, for large, successful internet companies to take the initiative and lead the way in best practices. Yahoo! has a mandatory accessibility training program that all new developer employees must go through. Google has invested into an automatic captioning for YouTube videos in order to make it much easier for deaf people to enjoy the same procrastination tool that many web users have been able to use for several years now.

The second flaw that I can see contributing to the lack of standardization in web accessibility, does simply not know how to sell the idea. Imagine you work for a web design shop, and you want to pitch allocating some extra budget for ensuring that the product is compliant with web accessibility standards. How would you sell that to a client? I can predict that 9 times out of 10, the client will say: “but our target audience isn’t blind/hard of hearing/elderly/(insert your own excuse).” People generally just aren’t educated enough about the need for accessibility to argue the point. This is where the WAI comes in. An accredited town crier who has presence in the developer’s community as source for professional education is exactly what we accessibility needs in order become a standard.

Further Reading

• Web Accessibility Initiative – WAI Homepage
• CNN/CNET – Web accessibility no longer an afterthought
• Practical Ecommerce – Accessibility: How Many Disabled Web Users Are There?

Many developing countries have adopted an unlikely form of technology, which many take for granted. Where it was once expensive to run a power-grid, let alone a phone line people now are able to communicate without wires with the use of cell phones. These areas have skipped many technological steps and have taken a giant leap in order to be able to communicate and do business like the rest of the world does.  It’s hard to imagine how integral the ability to communicate is to daily life. Sure it makes the world a smaller place, but sometimes that’s needed in order to survive in an ever expanding technological world.

Lara Farrar describes in a CNN article how a cell phone has transformed a Ghanaian man’s small taxi business. He is able to get calls to be picked up at any time from any anywhere. He is able to be on-call at all hours, and thus never losing on a business opportunity. Families can stay in touch easier from long distance, and farmers can keep track of market prices a town over in order to keep from losing on potential profit. It’s hard to dispute that the wide acceptance of a cheap, mobile, wireless, device could be a bad thing. It won’t transform a developing country into a modern high-tech society over night, and it is of course no substitute for good education and good health care systems. But it helps.

One of the challenges that faced cell phone adoption in developing countries was the requirement for electricity in order to charge phones. Many of these places have scarce and non-dependable energy resource, and thus driving the cost of owning a cell phone up. Samsung has recently started selling a reasonably priced solar charging phone called the Solar Guru. It has all of desired basic features of a modern cell phone including an FM radio, MP3 ring tones, games, and a torch light (a useful feature I had on an old phone that I am saddened does not appear on a lot of newer phones). This phone costs about $60 and can run for 5-10 minutes of talk time with just one hour of sunlight. It’s incredible how something that comes in no scarcity in many developing farming communities can be used to bring vital communication to places where once people had to travel to neighboring towns just to charge a cell phone.

Samsung is one of the few who attempts to bring cell phones to new markets where there is seldom a competitor. Its simply good business. Out of this there are sure to be competitors who will be able to offer more at a cheaper cost. Many of us in the US complain of cell service providers taking advantage of the consumer. This is the only downside that I can see with the potential boom in cell phones in poor developing countries. I fear that the cut-throat competition that thrives in cell service providers may attempt to get the best of economically week societies. What would be a preventative solution? Many have already adopted a pay as you go type plan in these places. Maybe if the trend continues in this direction, consumers will be safe from the communications giants that wring many modern consumers into contracts that exploit.

Further Reading

• CNN – Africans get upwardly mobile in cell phone boom
• Green Technology Daily - Will solar speed up emerging cell phone revolution
• Developments.org - Mobile phone revolution

Capitalism is known for its consumer driven economy. It creates competition and therefore encourages innovation and low cost. The consumer ultimately decides on what is an acceptable price and product quality. In these modern times with booming technology we are starting to see a rising trend that has somehow been allowed to exist against the common scene of the common consumer. Vendor lock-in has slipped under the radar as a Trojan horse without causing alarm and is now wreaking havoc and locking consumers and their wallets to monopolized prices all while squashing any and all competition.

How did this happen? Sometimes disguised as product loyalty, Apple sells its hard ware sporting an image. What happens when that shiny MacBook breaks? Can owners of broken hardware bring it to a third party specialist who can fix any hardware that follows standards in best practices in the market? No, consumers must 9 times out of 10 bring it to an Apple store, so that an Apple technician can fix the problem. You bought an Apple product, now you have no choice but to come back for extra service, whether it is an upgrade or extension of service. (Note the irony in that Apple is now locked into a strangling contract with AT&T.)

The initial investment into a company or product ultimately makes smaller choices of upgrades and additions cheaper to stay with the vendor than to change. The next thing the consumer knows, their entire “owned” suite of products (whether it be computer software, hardware, cell phone service, etc.) is with a single vendor. The consumer has essentially dug themselves into a hole of brand loyalty intentionally or not and is therefore forced to continue to financially feed the monster. Where does the cycle end and more importantly how does it hurt capitalism as a whole?

As I have stated earlier, capitalism thrives on innovation and the competition. Small business is a risk. There is no sure thing with a start up. There is less money to throw around, and this causes small business to stay innovative an ahead of the curve. This is its ace in the hole and the only thing it has to fight bigger companies. Large companies have their resources at their disposal; products can be created faster and cheaper. Ultimately the savings can be passed down to the consumer. Small business’s job is to challenge large companies with its innovation. Large companies’ jobs are to create competitive prices for the small business to beat. Thus business swings back and forth as David beats Goliath and vice versa on a regular basis. In the end, consumers win. They get the best of both worlds.

What is happening with vendor lock-in trends is that large companies are forcing their product, at a price they decide is fair on a consumer. The consumer must play along, or pay the price of breaking the cycle. Breaking the cycle means giving up their brand for a lesser known brand that offers innovation at a higher cost. The cost being: throwing away an initial investment into a vendor lock-in type product on top of the cost of investment into the smaller brand’s product.

It’s easy to see how the consumer is getting the tail end of the deal, but it goes beyond cost. Innovation suffers because small business suffers. It’s a snowball effect that creates a standstill in these fast moving technological times. It’s apparent that the problem exists, but there is no easy answer. Open source is starting to get more attention than it has in the past, but it only applies to software. The best way to change the current trends in business is to let the consumer’s money talk. In the end, the US is still run by capitalism. Money is the only language that capitalism understands. We won’t see a change until consumers wise up to the vendor lock-in gift and make it more profitable for business to compete rather than bully.