Re: FN-FORUM: Websites for the disabled

date posted 8th January 2008 14:43

Gary Short wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
>
>>> the act states only one must be accessible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Where?
>>
>
> Section 21 subsection 4 provides for the provision of auxiliary services.
>
>
>> I refer once more to my previous citation, which explicitly uses an
>> example of an airline, and then frankly give up. If you chose to accept
>> the (alleged) interpretation of an institution that has no actual legal
>> basis, on your head be it.
>>
>
> I'm curious to know why you felt it necessary to besmirch my name by putting the word alledged in brackets before the word interpretation. Can I take it that you believe I am lying when I say I sought advice from the DRC? What are you basing that belief on?
>
> As to whether or not I accept the DRC's intrepretation of the act; in the absence of case law I have no real choice do I? I would certainly accept their intrepretation before yours.
>
>
>> "An airline company provides a flight reservation and booking service to
>> the public on its website. This is a provision of a service and is
>> subject to the act."
>>
>> This website booking facility IS a service, under the act's code of
>> conduct, regardless of whether or not they provide a walk-in service
>> (which must also be accessible).
>>
>
> The booking facility is the service, the web site is the mechanism by which the service is accessed. If it is the only mechanism then it must be accessible to the disabled, however if a telephone mechanism is also provided then the act has been complied with under section 21 subsection 4.
>
>
Please Gary, get over yourself. It was not my intention to besmirch your
name with the addition of "alleged", merely a caveat as I have yet to
see the DRC make this assertion themselves (if you can provide a link or
reference so we have it from the horses mouth, this whole matter could
be cleared up).

I completely understand you wanting to take the DRCs interpretation
rather than mine, you don't know me from Adam. However, I do have a
background in law, and think that if the DRCs position is that which you
have suggested, then they are just as wrong as you.

However, that is merely an opinion. As is theirs (they have no actual
relevance or power when it comes to interpretation of the law, as I'm
sure you're aware). As is yours. Until there is a case which tests the
application of the law, all of this is speculation.

Given that assuming the act considers a website a "service" means that
you have happy disabled campers and a 0% chance of falling foul of the
DDA, along with meaning you will be working in good practice and
conscience - I fail to see why anyone would not take this as the default
stance?

Assuming that the act doesn't consider a website a service COULD mean
unhappy disabled campers, the possibility of you or a client having the
joy of actually becoming the revelatory test case, along with what many
consider bad practice and arguably conscience.

...Is that really what you are arguing for? I am a little confused.