Re: FN-FORUM: Websites for the disabled

date posted 8th January 2008 15:01

-------- Original Message --------=0D=0A> Please Gary, get over yourself. I=
t was not my intention to besmirch your =0D=0A> name with the addition of "=
alleged", merely a caveat as I have yet to =0D=0A> see the DRC make this as=
sertion themselves (if you can provide a link or =0D=0A> reference so we ha=
ve it from the horses mouth, this whole matter could =0D=0A> be cleared up)=
.=0D=0A=0D=0AThat's an excellent idea, I'll contact the author of the email=
and ascertain whether or not they have any objection to me publishing it h=
ere.=0D=0A=0D=0A> I completely understand you wanting to take the DRCs inte=
rpretation =0D=0A> rather than mine, you don't know me from Adam. However, =
I do have a =0D=0A> background in law, and think that if the DRCs position =
is that which you =0D=0A> have suggested, then they are just as wrong as yo=
u.=0D=0A=0D=0AIts not a case of them being as wrong as me or me as wrong as=
them. Its just a case of me passing on their advice when the OP asked for =
it. Seems no good deed goes unpunished. ;-)=0D=0A=0D=0AAs for you having a =
background in law, good; if only the DRC had thought to employ people with =
a background in law to look at the act then we would never have had this di=
scussion. :-)=0D=0A=0D=0A> Given that assuming the act considers a website =
a "service" means that =0D=0A> you have happy disabled campers and a 0% cha=
nce of falling foul of the =0D=0A> DDA, along with meaning you will be work=
ing in good practice and =0D=0A> conscience - I fail to see why anyone woul=
d not take this as the default =0D=0A> stance?=0D=0A> =0D=0A> Assuming that=
the act doesn't consider a website a service COULD mean =0D=0A> unhappy d=
isabled campers, the possibility of you or a client having the =0D=0A> joy =
of actually becoming the revelatory test case, along with what many =0D=0A>=
consider bad practice and arguably conscience.=0D=0A> =0D=0A> ...Is that r=
eally what you are arguing for? I am a little confused.=0D=0A=0D=0ANo, that=
is not what I am arguing for. As I have said repeatidly, I think accessibl=
e web sites are a good idea (for a number of reasons). I'm merely stating t=
hat the law does not compel you to have an accessible web site. At least no=
t at the moment, though I think we can all see that day coming.=0D=0A=0D=0A=
-- =0D=0ACheers,=0D=0AGary=0D=0Ahttp://www.garyshort.org