W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Frames and accessibility: opinions please

From: Martin Sloan <martin.sloan@orange.net>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 18:46:13 GMT
To: "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <3237c36180.361803237c@orange.net>
In relation to this whole 'free/not free' proprietary argument, my 
reading of the legislation is that it only applies to software that a 
disabled person specifically requires to access the site. I.e. not to 
downloads which everyone needs to use the site - there is a 
difference. For instance, everyone needs to download Acrobat to view 
PDF files, but if this was charged for then disabled people as a group 
would be no worse off than those who are not.

Although that could be interpreted to mean that screen readers should 
be provided free...

martin.
--
Martin Sloan
Glasgow Graduate School of Law
e: martin.sloan@orange.net
t: 0141 586 8917
m: 07974 655170


> >HOWEVER 28CFR36.301(c) states " a public accomodation shall not 
> impose a
> >surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any 
> group of
> >individuals with disabilities to coover the costs of measures 
> such as the
> >provision of auxiliiary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to 
> barrier>removal and resonable modifications in policies, practices 
> or procedures
> >that are required to provide that individual or group with the
> >nondiscrimanatory treatment required by the Act or this part"
> >
> >
> >Sounds like free to me!
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 14:46:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:04 GMT