W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: OT (slightly): Salt Lake '02 Webmaster: Inaccessible site

From: Hewitt, Denise <Denise.Hewitt@idea.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:24:55 -0600
Message-ID: <9CAB32B1B967BA49B0B7675A02EBB9308B94A3@TX047MX2KPROD01.idea.com>
To: "'Harry Woodrow '" <harrry@email.com>, "Hewitt, Denise" <Denise.Hewitt@idea.com>, "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org '" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I stand corrected! (thanks =) )

The original news articles I read focused on IBM's involvement... and I was
new enough to the whole concept at the time that that is what stuck in my
mind. I more wanted to point out that there had been... a certain level of
attention paid two years ago to the previous website being an issue... it
wasn't a complete non-entity in the news.


-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Woodrow
To: Hewitt, Denise; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Sent: 10/30/2001 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: OT (slightly): Salt Lake '02 Webmaster: Inaccessible site

To be fair to IBM it was not IBM that were taken to the Human Rights
Commission it was SOCOG.  When SOCOG tried to join IBM (in the end
stages of
the case) the Federal Court refused as SOCOG was the owner of the site,
controlled the site and design of it and the chief designer was from
It is my understanding, although I am not sure of this, that IBM had
an accessible site and were told not to do so. In this case IBM was a
contractor performing work to another's specification.

I leave the judgment on whether they should have continued to build a
which was inaccessible and thus illegal to others to decide.

Harry Woodrow
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 13:25:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC