Re: FN-FORUM: Websites for the disabled

date posted 8th January 2008 11:44


On 8 Jan 2008, at 12:36, Gary Short wrote:
>
> You are, of course, welcome to disagree and hold your own opinion =20
> instead. However, that will not change the fact that the DRC are the =20=

> subject matter experts in the area and I have checked with them, and =20=

> they have agreed that my position is the correct one.

You might want to check again.

the DRC is now part of the Equality and Human Rights Commission:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/Pages/default.aspx

a search for DDA and Websites there produces a list of documents, one =20=

of which:

The Web
Access and Inclusion
for Disabled People

A Formal Investigation conducted by
the Disability Rights Commission

London: TSO
=A9 Disability Rights Commission 2004

contains the following:

Organisations that offer goods and services on the Web already have a =20=

legal duty to make their sites accessible. It is clear from the =20
investigation that these duties are not being fulfilled. The =20
Commission=92s policy is to seek improvement in the first instance =20
through advice and conciliation, and this report contains a range of =20
recommendations to help website owners and developers tackle the =20
barriers to inclusive design. However, where the response is =20
inadequate, we shall be vigorous in the use of our enforcement powers; =20=

these range from =93named-party=94 Formal Investigations which can lead =
to =20
sanctions against the owners of inaccessible websites, to the =20
provision of support for test cases being brought by individual =20
disabled people.

(direct link to rtf: =
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/DRC/Useful%20Documents/theweb=
%20drc%20formal%20investigation.rtf=20
)

which suggests that there is a conflict between what you have been =20
told and whoever wrote that document.

I'm not arguing with you personally, but you're taking such a strong =20
stance I feel I have to question it for the benefit of others on this =20=

list who may feel that a strongly argued case is more true than a =20
personally researched situation.


if you are running a web site, get you're own legal advice. don't =20
take mine, nor Gary's word for it.

;o)