1 Re: Accessibility and UK Law

To add some clarifications on some points, the DDA code of practice is not the only reference for UK web sites. The standard set by the UK government web sites is also a likely source to be drawn upon. It stipulates that web sites should comply to WAI guidelines at level A, this would then include the little known Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (ATAG), with the more well known Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG). The guidelines for local government sites are even more stringent suggesting that Web Sites should comply to level AA of the WCAG 1.0. This obviously follows the European line set out in the article.

Personally, I have been told by RNIB staff that they have supported claims against web sites that have been settled out of court. I do not have details because the parties involved have not disclosed them.

I think it is also important to add that although the legal issues exist which can be an incentive for an organisation to make it’s web site’s accessible, it is also a positive step to take. Accessibility adds inclusion to a slice of the population which may have hitherto been unable to use web services provided and adds value for other users. I would really ask people to promote accessibility on it’s merits rather than the threat of dire legal consequences.

To declare my affiliations, I am participant in good standing of the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines working group, and an invited Expert for the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines. I also am a member of the Euro Accessibility Consortium’s Task Force 2, and I am about to participate in a proposed British Standard on Accessibility for e-learning. I also consult on accessibility in the UK for Netalley Networks LLP a partnership of which I am a partner.

posted at 08:57 am on April 9, 2004 by Tom Croucher

2 Re: Web Accessibility and UK Law

To add some clarifications on some points, the DDA code of practice is not the only reference for UK web sites. The standard set by the UK government web sites is also a likely source to be drawn upon. It stipulates that web sites should comply to WAI guidelines at level A, this would then include the little known Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (ATAG), with the more well known Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG). The guidelines for local government sites are even more stringent suggesting that Web Sites should comply to level AA of the WCAG 1.0. This obviously follows the European line set out in the article.

Personally, I have been told by RNIB staff that they have supported claims against web sites that have been settled out of court. I do not have details because the parties involved have not disclosed them.

I think it is also important to add that although the legal issues exist which can be an incentive for an organisation to make it’s web site’s accessible, it is also a positive step to take. Accessibility adds inclusion to a slice of the population which may have hitherto been unable to use web services provided and adds value for other users. I would really ask people to promote accessibility on it’s merits rather than the threat of dire legal consequences.

To declare my affiliations, I am participant in good standing of the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines working group, and an invited Expert for the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines. I also am a member of the Euro Accessibility Consortium’s Task Force 2, and I am about to participate in a proposed British Standard on Accessibility for e-learning. I also consult on accessibility in the UK for Netalley Networks LLP a partnership of which I am a partner.

posted at 08:59 am on April 9, 2004 by Tom Croucher

3 DRC report

The DRC report mentioned in the article is due on the 14th April. More information canbe found here:

http://www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/newsdetails.asp?id=630&section=1

posted at 09:13 am on April 9, 2004 by Simon Proctor

4 About the law sues

I went to Glasgow March this year for a Web Accessibility workshop host by an International Law Firm Manson (Co-host by the Scottish Enterprise Network). They did mention the RNIB law sue (They claim it was a success). But nobody could get a word out of them about the detail etc. They also cliam that there is money availble to any one who feel that they want to make a formal complaint.

I believe this is only a good thing. If you look around the world, a lot of develop country already (or planning to) put this practice into law. And anyone who are developing website for Government Agency or Charity in US and Australia already have to comply with the W3C requirement.

Looking forward for more article and info about this in this website.

posted at 09:51 am on April 9, 2004 by Joel Chu

5 Blind Drivers?

Should we let blind people drive cars or trucks?

posted at 10:25 am on April 9, 2004 by rich

6 WCAG 2.0

From what I understand, WCAG 1.0 will be superceded by WCAG 2.0 (when?), which will jumble about one’s current accessibility checklist. WCAG 2.0 is now a W3C Working Draft.

To paraphrase one of the contributors, Yvette Hoitink:

In WCAG 1, priorities were based on importance. The problem with that was, that you were basically applying preferences to handicaps: this handicap is more important than that one.

In WCAG 2, Level 1 contains what can reasonably be expected from authors. The idea behind this being that you want as much support for accessibility.

posted at 10:30 am on April 9, 2004 by Branko Collin

7 so whats the easiest work around?

sholuld we all provide “text only” versions of sites or do we have to do complete re-designs. If text only is viable then will there be regulations as to the style and format of the linking text?

mark

posted at 10:43 am on April 9, 2004 by mark rushworth

8 ...and another thing

does this mean that any company providing a brochure should have to create audio versiona, large type or brail versions?

mark

posted at 10:45 am on April 9, 2004 by mark rushworth

9 Easiest workaround reply to Mark Rushworth

Yes it is almost like providing a “text-only” site with plain (no styling) but structured mark-ups. If it is done right, it can be accessible by most mobile browsers and screen readers too.

As for graphical purposes on the web, we can use CSS to change the whole look of the site including graphics enhancement. Most sites need a redesign to get into the standards.

``does this mean that any company providing a brochure should have to create audio versiona, large type or brail versions?’‘

This sounds exactly like what I thought before, ridiculous. People were asking me to convert and code my graphical site to conform with the web standards, which was like making an image gallery with no text other than just images, page numbering and navigation buttons, to be accessible on a screenreader.

I was wrong. Creating an accessible and good structured site is to design with the web standards. Once you do it right, you get what you want and it is accessible. This is a challenge, a good practise, and a requirement for future web designers.

I think I do not explain well but hope this little bit of informations can be helpful.

posted at 11:19 am on April 9, 2004 by Snecx Tan W.H.

10 Way ahead of ya

Mine is already accessible.
The government should stay the hell away from websites and leave web developers alone, IMHO.

posted at 11:28 am on April 9, 2004 by Dante-Cubed