W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Can ADA be counterproductive (was Re: Legal leg to stand on?)

From: Brian Kelly <lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:18:08 -0000
Message-ID: <01dd01be7548$bdbe8f30$3c92268a@bath.ac.uk>
To: "'WAI Interest Group'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think my original posting has been misunderstood.  I wanted to know if
it's true that websites have been taken down as a result of the ADA - not
why they're are behaving unethically, or that we're well rid of them.

I'm still interested in hearing an answer.  I'd also be interested to know
the reasons they give - if this is the case.  Is it due to the costs (real
or perceived) in making the site accessible, worries about legal bills, or
something else.

Thanks

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Kelly <lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: 'WAI Interest Group' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 8:37 AM
Subject: Can ADA be counterproductive (was Re: Legal leg to stand on?)


>
>Kynn Bartlett said:
>
>
>> My _guess_ is that you won't be able to use this approach on them.
>> I would suspect that an economic motive would work better rather
>> than a legal one
>
>Kynn's comments (which I'd agree with - especially as the ADA is not
>relevant to most of the world!) reminds me that I've heard rumours that
some
>websites have been removed, rather than made accessible, when threatened
>with the ADA.  Can anyone confirm this?
>
>Thanks
>
>Brian Kelly
>------------------------------------------------------
>Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus
>UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, England, BA2 7AY
>Email:  b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk     URL:    http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
>Homepage: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/b.kelly.html
>Phone:  01225 323943            FAX:   01225 826838
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 1999 11:20:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:43 GMT