<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="rss_style.xsl" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
        <title>ZDNet Blogs</title>
        <link>http://blogs.zdnet.com</link>
        <description>ZDNet Blogs Focus: Accessibility</description>
<item>
<title>Are satellite shows and podcasts accessiblity-equivalent?</title>
<link>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=196</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:18:15 -0700</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Denise Howell</dc:creator>
<guid>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=196</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Robert Scoble is wondering whether accessibility laws may cripple videocasts (and presumably podcasts).  Scott Bourne had an interesting (if inconclusive) post on the subject last year, and the head lemur posits that the touchstone (in the context of the Target case presently in the news) may be whether or not you're doing e-commerce.  I'm out of my depth with accessibility law, but the subject has certainly come up and intrigued us for the last two years in the legal session at the Podcast and New Media Expo.    My thinking, uninformed as it is, is that Web accessibility and video/podcast accessibility are different animals.  Since podcasts aren't going out over any FCC-regulated spectrum, perhaps their accessibility ... ]]>
</description></item>
</channel>
</rss>
