> as someone who works with small organisational websites a lot, knowing how many screen reader users (a simple user-agent style record would be enough) were visiting them would certainly help in allocating resources and convincing people in making the right decisions.
I personally think that’s an argument against the API. It sounds like tracking user metrics for the purpose of convincing your management to do the right thing. That’s almost like putting a surveillance camera near set of stairs so you can track how many wheelchair users were unable to get into the building.
> clients don’t have the knowledge to identify the issues. And then the standard response is: ‘How many blind people come to our website, anyway.’ And at the moment, we don’t have an answer for them.
Answer: One is two many, and at that point, it’s too late for that one. Just build the wheelchair ramp.
> And the accessibility community is not making it easier by not giving them information.
The accessibility community you speak of is also a disability community, and they have the right to protect the knowledge of that disability from anyone for any reason. I understand you have good intentions, but I don’t think you’re helping the case. I wrote the API proposal—I want it to succeed—and yet your comments here in favor of the API have proven more of Marco’s points than mine.
It seems Marco is at least right that the working group is going to have its work cut out for it to “provide enough incentive for web authors not to abuse the querying mechanisms described.”