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 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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:19 UTC