RE: FN-FORUM: Websites for the disabled

date posted 8th January 2008 14:34

-------- Original Message --------=0D=0A> From: Phillip Healey [EMAIL REMOVED]
munklefish.co.uk>=0D=0A> Sent: 08 January 2008 14:10=0D=0A> To: "FN-FORUM /=
[EMAIL REMOVED] [EMAIL REMOVED] Subject: RE: FN-FORUM: Web=
sites for the disabled=0D=0A=0D=0A> Dear Gary, What i am saying is its a ve=
ry ignorant stance to recommend to=0D=0A> others thats its possible to pick=
and choose compliance to discrimination /=0D=0A> accessibility laws on the=
justification of whether an alternative or=0D=0A> supportive service agree=
s with legislation.=0D=0A=0D=0APossibly, but I'm only passing on guidance t=
hat I received from the DRC. What is the source of the guidance you are pas=
sing on?=0D=0A=0D=0A> NO! Your local butcher cannot ignore accessibility gu=
idlines for his shop=0D=0A> purely because he offers a mail-order service. =
He can however rightly say=0D=0A> that the laws of accessibility to a physi=
cal premises only require ramps etc=0D=0A> to be installed when a property =
was built or implemented a change of purpose=0D=0A> since the date the law =
was introduced.=0D=0A=0D=0AThe guidance I received from the DRC (as well as=
the legal advice he sought at the time) says he can. According to the DRC =
advice an auxiliary service satisfies the act in terms of section 21 subsec=
tion 4.=0D=0A=0D=0A> Likwise it is wrong to inform people that they can cho=
ose not to adhere to=0D=0A> accessibility guidlines for websites purely bec=
ause the 'disabled' person=0D=0A> can choose to use another means. =0D=0A=
=0D=0AAgain, not according to the advice I received from the DRC. When you =
assert that the DRC are wrong on this matter, what is your source?=0D=0A=0D=
=0A-- =0D=0ACheers,=0D=0AGary=0D=0Ahttp://www.garyshort.org=0D=0A