Re: FN-FORUM: Websites for the disabled

date posted 8th January 2008 16:06

Martin Wheatley wrote:
>
> On 08/01/2008 15:56, Phillip Healey wrote:
>> P.s. just out of interest does he stick the meat in an enevelope and
>> post it
>> via royal mail? This would potentially fall-foul of posting regulations
>> especially if it was a chicken.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I doubt it'd be via royal mail, but you could pack the meat in a
> suitable insulated magic ice box and send it. There are several online
> shops that do this.
>
> Martin
>
I've learned something. Didn't know these things existed...poor posties
when strike ensues!!

As to the rest, it seems we are broadly agreeing then. Except on one
point. It is incorrect to state that the law is currently allowing
inaccessible websites where there is an accessible alternative to a
service (if we ignore the point of whether or not a website does
actually constitute a service - and I still fail to see how it cannot
given the explicit example in the code of conduct). It is correct to
state that there have to date been no cases in the UK applying the law
in this way, but that doesn't make it legal.

Some sources seem fairly certain as to which way the law leans, such as
Webcredible:
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml

and others (assuming DRC position is accurate), lean the other way.

Woolley & Co hold the middle ground, and essentially posit the only
"correct" opinion, which is that the jury is out on this. They actually
make the same point I do, that the DRCs position is merely an opinion
and cannot be legally relied upon:
http://www.e-lawfirm.co.uk/businesslaw/eventsofdda.asp (sadly they don't
link to what that opinion actually is, so yes please, if they permit -
can we see their email?).

We actually agree on a second point as well. No Christmas cake for me
either thanks! :)