Odeon Orders Takedown Of Copycat Site 478
Tuxedo Jack writes "The Register reports that Odeon Cinemas, a British theater chain, has ordered a takedown of a copycat version of its site that was made by a disability activist. The original didn't work outside of IE on Windows and was in violation of the Disability Discrimination Act; the activist-recoded one worked on everything. Odeon has flip-flopped on the issue, too; they liked it when it was first up, and now they don't."
Wrong priorities here... (Score:5, Insightful)
So What...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, their site should work in other browsers, but that is not the issue.
The issue is that some guy is tricking people into submitting info to his site instead of the Odeon site like they think that they are. Maybe he collects the data before he sends it to Odeon, maybe he doesn't like he says. I don't know him, and thats not even the issue.
I can very well understand why a company does not want someone they don't know collecting their customers information in their name. What if they guy ends up getting caught selling all these names to spammers one day? Then Odeon would really look stupid for not taking action against the guy.
Welll (Score:4, Insightful)
So, why is this a bad thing? Yes their site may suck, but violating Copyright is violating Copyright no matter how you slice it.
Disabled people should revenge (Score:1, Insightful)
Bastards (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently it doesn't even work correctly in MSIE most of the time, and I found the copycat site particularly useful in finding out times of films. I'd normally then book via phone.
A message to Odeon: Fix the site, and maybe then you might have some reason to complain. But so far, since the copycat site:
* Allows more people to look up film times.
* Makes it easier for people to do the above.
* Does not detract potential revenue away from Odeon itself.
Probably a bigwig who has no clue of the situation made this decision..
Pull out the data! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong priorities here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I spent no less than 60 seconds staring at the intro screen trying to figgure out how to get in to the damn site.
I hate intro screens.
When I finally realized that clicking the ad wasn't actually clicking an ad, I was presented with a just-as-mysterious layout on the homepage.
Well-intentioned laws (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem stems from the fact that in our society (modern Western democracies anyway), we are so buried in an avalanche of regulations that there is no way you can even be aware of them all, and when one that is particularly useful... such as a law requiring handicapped access, enforcement becomes infeasible because so much effort is being wasted to meet the utter explosion of bureaucratic requirements.
We already work about half the year just to pay taxes, and when we can work for ourselves how big does the proportion of time we spend dealing with red tape have to be before people get fed up. We are being nickel-and-dimed into losing productivity. Meanwhile this Web site apparently ignores the law and it will probably be months or years before anything can be done about it because the people who could do something about it are too busy making sure that all government contractors are using 7/64" bevelled grommets instead of 3/32" bevelled grommets.
Marketing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The original site only allowed access to people using Internet Explorer and Windows and was in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Despite predictions when his site first went up that the lawyers' letters would arrive immediately Odeon Cinema initially welcomed the site - as did many disabled people who could access the site for the first time.
But this all changed with the arrival of an email from Luke Vetere, marketing director at Odeon
Brilliant marketing. Piss off and lock out a demographic. And there's nothing better to improve a company's image than screwing over disabled people and breaking the law. Odeon is really getting its money's worth hiring this moron.
Re:The website... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So What...? (Score:2, Insightful)
It was also in violation of the Law.
His site is both browser compliant and legal.
Odeon should have had their site legally shut down until it was compliant with the law, just as the guy should have had his site shut down because it was in violation of Odeon's rights.
But the guy was a programer, not a lawyer, so this is what happened.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
lesson to be learned (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welll (Score:5, Insightful)
I see the logic in making your site as accessible to everyone, and much logic in forcing certain buildings to be accessible to those with disabilities, particularly Government buildings. But this "Act" would seem to make it illegal to make a site that is all flash, or accessible to Opera only, etc. It seems that it is in the webmaster's best interest to allow the widest audience to use the site, but I don't see how it is any government business how a private company codes its website. Frankly, its no one's business if I want to code my own site to be inaccessible to anyone I want. Even Microsoft won't let you update Windows automatically without IE, which is their right.
This is a theatre chain, they should have the right to design their website as they see fit. Going online to view movie listings falls far short of the what any government should regulate. Should we pass a law that requires all websites (blogs, family home pages, theatres, slashdot, etc) to have every bit of text, including the html source, as audio, to make the site accessible to blind people?
Whats your point? (Score:2, Insightful)
I also used copy cat site...... (Score:1, Insightful)
I emailed the odeon webmaster several times, politely asking them to support other browsers. I never got a reply.....
Fire them and hire this guy !
Re:Open and shut, IMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, the e-mail to Somerville says [dracos.co.uk],
So there is a trademark issue here after all.Re:So What...? (Score:4, Insightful)
How did he trick them? The url for his accessable site clearly was part of his own site. If someone was using his Odeon page it was because they had deliberately gone there because they wanted an accessable site. Likely some disabled (or enabled if they used Mozilla) wanted to book a movie seat, but could not until their friend or what ever said "try Matthew Somerville's site, it has an accessable copy of the Odeon site".
If he had spoofed the address, or used a Microsoft "feature" to silently link to his site that would have been trickery.
$1/GB? I doubt it... (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree that they should redo their site, the cost savings would be minimal. I do, however, feel that having a fully-complaint website should be about more than just cost savings. The reason Slashdot doesn't switch over probably has more to do with "it works now, so why bother with changing it" than anything else.
The correct answer is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Does having a site only working in IE make it inaccessible to handicapped? Is this saying that Mozilla users are handicapped? IE, and windows, have some good integrated accessibility features, magnifyers and text-to-speech and all that.
The guy keeps saying they break this accessability law because it doesnt work on some browsers or systems. I don't see the connection. Mario Sunshine doesn't run on my linux-hacked XBox, is Nintendo violating this law?
If thats the fact, then I should point out that I've had many problems with slashdot on Mozilla and Firebird/fox/ant/fly, and it looks like positive shit under lynx. Apparently slashdot is breaking this "law" too.
I wont argue that this is good web design habits. Your sites should be viewable under any old HTML 1.1+ browser, IMO. But since when was it a matter of law to have a shit website? Since never, and thats really whats going on here.
It's one of those subjective things. Like the "fair use" thing. Slashbots on the free mp3z side of the argument would have you believe it's in the bill of rights, next to freedom of speech and religion. It's not.
Re:Welll (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't protest a building not having a handicapped entrance by building a clone next door and moving everything from the original building into yours.
Re:Open and shut, IMO (Score:4, Insightful)
Odeon wants to use the law? Fine. Use it right back.
Plenty of mud for everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people are spouting lots of FUD here. Of course the site should be assessable. But the Disabilities Act does not require anyone except government agencies and a few other select public service entities to have assessable web sites.
And by the way, Slashdot and OSDN does not comply with the act either, so if there is going to be some mud slinging, by all means be fair about it!
Open & Shut (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I can't. That's why they own trademarks, so they can control content. Now if Odeon was smart, they would simply fire off an RSS feed and let the guy fucking well spider it. Am I right or what?
Re:Welll (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, while I'm not familiar with UK law, I am quite familiar with US disabled rights laws (IANAL; I am disabled). "Reasonable accomodations" is the test in the US, and I assume something similar is the test in the UK; a site like Odeon's could easily (reasonably) been written in a more cross-browser fashion that would have allowed screenreaders to access it. A flash-only site might be flash-only for a reason, thus making HTML-only not a reasonable accomodation, and thus not legally required.
Re:Wrong priorities here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welll (Score:3, Insightful)
So you are saying that it's ok to break the law when someone else has?
I guess the next
Another flaw of your argument is of who is doing the law breaking. Just because Odeon was breaking the law does not mean that Somerville has the right to break the law. Of course... I've heard similar logic with regards to Microsoft on
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
You are demonstrably incorrect. They did NOT tweak their site to save themselves bad press. I'm used to people not reading the article, but have you read ANYTHING in this thread?
Re:Wrong priorities here... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Odeon site has annoyed me for years. I literally used to not go to Odeon cinemas because I couldn't find out what was on. Doesn't work outside IE? Doesn't work that well inside IE, if you want the truth.
The Odeon website is one of the crappiest sites I've ever seen for such a high profile company. It's annoying, arrogant and just plain stupid.
The Dracos version was bloody great - I could bookmark my local cinema (imagine that!) and easily see what films were on. It had scrollbars that (brace yourself!) acted like normal scrollbars! Can you bear it? Not like the Odeon site where they have the usual 'hover to scroll' Flash nonsense. (What is it with bloody Flash designers who feel they have to code a new slightly different scrollbar control on every freaking site?!)
Now the accessible site is gone, I'm back to the braindead Odeon site.
Bottom line? I'll go to their cinemas way less. It's too much hassle.
Great business sense.
Slashdot - Fairly On-Topic (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems unfair for the parent to be modded Offtopic.
Plus he/she brings up a good point: For all the nitpicking that we all do about non-compliant websites, it seems reasonable that the premier website for nerdly matters should set the example and lead the way.
Re:Whats your point? (Score:2, Insightful)
He tried. It didn't work.
The sad truth is that far too few people are aware of the impact of coding a website that is not accessible [w3.org].
I hesitate to say that they don't care. I prefer to think that they don't know.
That's not funny at all (Score:1, Insightful)
We can also post on
Re:Bastards (Score:2, Insightful)
Customers couldn't book tickets on the copycat site at all. The can on the official site when using Internet Explorer.
So yes, the "accessible" site is detracting potential revenue away from Odeon.
Regards,
foo fighter
Flash is good (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's made with usability in mind, Flash can be a good way to build value and rapport, which is important to many people on the net.
Re:Open and shut, IMO (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they thought they were interacting directly with the Odeon site but they weren't. It doesn't matter if he just transparently passes the data, he's still misrepresenting his site.
The problem is that Odeon has no control over what he does. If there is a problem with his site or he screws up the customer's data, then they will think it was Odeon's fault. Even if his intentions are good, and everything seems to work find right now, it is still a dangerous liability for the company. Absolutly they have to shut him down. Or force him to make it absolutly clear to his visitors that his site is not affiliated with Odeon.
Re:Plenty of mud for everyone! (Score:3, Insightful)
Since many agencies and companys already have telephone hotlines, many of them forward the disabled to these lines rather than bother with the web guidelines. I assume Odeon has such a hotline (any self respecting theatre in the US would).
Incidentally, the web guideliens are not that tough to follow, but they do require some things that are difficult to manage with more dynamic sites (such as requiring alternate descriptions f all images).
Re:Open and shut, IMO (Score:1, Insightful)
Hello,
I'd like to voice my complaints at your handling of the "Accessible Odeon Website", formerly hosted at
http://www.dracos.co.uk/odeon/. I used it regularly as a replacement for your badly designed and completely dysfunctional website, to find film showing times and other useful information that I needed
as a customer to spend money watching films in your cinemas.
Since you appear to be unable to provide this sort of information yourself in a suitably open manner to
users of Internet browsers other than Internet Explorer, I really fail to see the necessity in shutting
down a free site providing your customers with information beneficial to your business.
Until I can access this sort of information again with my choice of browser from the comfort of my own home, I'll be visiting some other cinemas who are able to provide such things.
Yours,
Tom Feist
----
and I intend to stick by it. It doesn't help that the Odeon (fairly) recently closed their nearest cinema to me, and the nearest non Odeon is a fair distance away, but if it'll make them realise, good luck for them.
And since Matthew appears to be reading/posting here, thanks for the great site while it lasted.
Re:Well-intentioned laws (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why ramps are built for wheel chairs. This is why disabled car parking spaces are made. This is why pedestrian crossing buttons make the chirping noise. Many of these things add little to no cost, they just require a little forethought. A little politeness.
This is not about "voting with your money". Disabled people are in the minority. They probably always will be. So their dollars won't count for much, especially given the limited employment opportunities (and, hence, dollars) available for them. Do we really want to live in a place where the rules are decided simply by who has more money? Or do we want a place where all people are valued regardless of any disability.
The irony is that the web, with all these computar thingies, is most suited to enabling people with disabilities interact with the modern world. Remember the "on the internet, no-one knows you're a dog" comic. Well, no-one need know if you're deaf, blind or have a physical disability that makes keyboard/mouse interaction difficult. It's not hard to make accessible web sites. Just a little forethought. A little training to do the job you're being paid to do. You can even do it with Flash if you REALLY have to (but please don't. we're over the Flash thing.)
Why *should* you care about excluding people? People with a disability? Slashdot really brings out the best in people...
Re:Wrong priorities here... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are people that will argue that more than 1 is excessive. (Personally, I think they have a point)
Oh, their latest thing is now you have to register with them to look up a postcode. A postcode! You know, those things they're always moaning that people don't use? Register? Way to raise the barrier! I wonder how many people get to the form, and think "Sod it!" and just chuck the letter/parcel in the postbox with no postcode.
Ah yes... Apparently to prevent people (and businesses) from doing too many searches. Not quite sure why this is a problem, but apparantly it is.
Of course, they could simply ask for an email address and a password. They don't need to know my name. Or a simpler solution would be to just ask for an email address and send to that.
More people should take a leaf out of BBC News [bbc.co.uk]. Although they do have a fixed page width, and tables and other nastiness, they still include a low graphics version [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
The US Law is Section 508 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended by The Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
Whilst that law only applies to government entities, court rulings indicate that Intranets have to comply with ADA. One pissed off resident of the Ninth Judicial District of the US, and a lawyer is all it takes to flip Section 508 into the ADA.
Why not design an accessible website? It isn't much more difficult to do, and the people that are the most thankful are the normal, non-disabled population.
Amber
Here's a clue (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the fact that the website only worked in IE is independent of the accusation that it violates some discrimination law. They're two separate things which just happened to be mentioned together. You're reading too much into it.
For example, the way most people described the site, it sounds like there's no text to turn into speech, just lots of flash animations and menus. That's a discrimination law issue. Flash graphics should work in other browsers, so that's probably not related to the site not working in IE. More likely the IE thing is related to some weird scripting issue.
Re:Wrong priorities here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not good...