Re: FN-FORUM: Websites for the disabled

date posted 8th January 2008 12:29

-------- Original Message --------=0D=0A> Oh for goodness sake, read the ac=
t:=0D=0A=0D=0AI'm not sure that would help. I don't know if you are a lawye=
r but I certainly am not and so I rely on the professional advice I receive=
from those who are paid to know and in this case their advice is crystal c=
lear.=0D=0A=0D=0A> Your friends at the DRC have investigated over 1000 webs=
ites, and issued =0D=0A> warnings that they may fall foul of the DDA, odd t=
hat they should take a =0D=0A> differing position with yourself.=0D=0A=0D=
=0ANot at all, I would assume that the websites that have fallen foul of th=
e act are the only mechanism by which the service can be accessed, if that =
is the case, then it must be accessible to disabled people. However, if the=
service provider provides another mechanism then he does not have to make =
his web site accessible, though it will most likely be the cheapest option.=
The DDA is interested in gaining access to services for disabled people, t=
hey are not so much concerned by what mechanism that access is delivered.=
=0D=0A=0D=0A> Until there is decent precedent in this country, the law will=
remain =0D=0A> unclear - but just because the act has yet to be applied in=
court, there =0D=0A> can be no assumption that lack of accessibility is le=
gal.=0D=0A=0D=0AI'm not making assumptions I have an interpretation of the =
act from the DRC themselves that says where there is a number of mechanisms=
by which a service can be accessed, providing one of them is accessible to=
disabled people then the service provider has complied with the act. There=
is no need for all mechanisms to be accessible. So while the web site will=
most often be the accessible mechanism (as its the cheapest) it is not lai=
d down in the act that it has to be.=0D=0A=0D=0A-- =0D=0ACheers,=0D=0AGary=
=0D=0Ahttp://ww.garyshort.org=0D=0A