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

RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:08:44 -0500 (EST)
To: Cynthia Waddell <Cynthia.Waddell@psinetcs.com>
cc: Denise Wood <Denise_Wood@operamail.com>, WAI IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0201140607270.24949-100000@tux.w3.org>
it was something llikehttp://www.australianopen.com.au - I forget exactly,
but anyway it isn't the same thing tere anymore, although I don't know what
it has now. Perhaps Phill Jenkins can get us a snapshot section. Otherwise
looking for Australian Open Tennis should find it.

cheers

Charles

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Cynthia Waddell wrote:

  Charles,
  Do you have the url for the Australian Tennis Open?  I would be interested
  to see it.

  Thanks,
  Cynthia Waddell

  ---------------------------------------
  Cynthia D. Waddell, JD
  Ciber
  Principal Consultant
  Subject Matter Expert
  Accessibility Center of Excellence
  (800)547-5602 or Fax (800)228-8204

  ACE Offices are located at San Jose, CA, Sacramento, CA and Raleigh, NC USA

  San Jose Office:
  PO BOX 5456
  San Jose, California USA 95150-5456
  http://www.icdri.org/cynthia_waddell.htm


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
  Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 3:44 AM
  To: Denise Wood
  Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics


  I wouold like to dispute a point in this email. It was suggested that the
  Olympics case had no impact, as shown by the inaccessible site prodced for
  the Salt Lake Winter Games. However, I would like to contrast this with the
  sitre produced for the Australian Tennis Open (which was going to be subject
  to the same courts, and was produced by the same company for a different
  commissioning organisation). That site was, in my opinion, a highpoint in
  the
  development of accessible sites, providing real time access in different
  forms to results in progress.

  Also, I am participating in this discussion, and I do not think that
  legislation is the primary reason why a site should be accessible - it is
  there because there are other good reasons, and it is a good way to get
  people's attention, in my opinion. (In genera I don't think that a law is a
  good reason for anything - it is either a reflection  of scoiety's
  understanding that there is a good reason for something, or it is just a bad
  idea. But thats a whole different discussion for a different group <grin/>)

  cheers

  Charles

  On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Denise Wood wrote:

    Simon, I agree with your comment that it is "...a shame that we have the
  need
    for this kind of legislation when we are all human beings, not something
  to be
    labelled." I doubt any one contributing to this discussion would regard
    legislation as the primary reason that a web site should be accessible.

    However, as Cynthia points out, we need legislation because barriers still
    exist that prevent some people from accessing Web sites. Regrettably, many
  of
    the arguments used to support the case for Web accessibility (such as the
    human rights arguments, the business arguments, and the universal design
    arguments) have failed to convince companies and organizations. That is
  why we
    often do need to fall back on legislation to present the most compelling
  case
    for Web accessibility. However, even then, test cases such as the Bruce
    Lindsay Maguire v Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games case
  fail
    to achieve the desired change in attitude/behavior. For example, many of
  you
    will recall the posting by Mike Burks in October last year when he
  suggested
    people review the Salt Lake Olympic site which at that time also
  demonstrated
    accessibility problems.So the Salt Lake Web site organizing committee and
    developers had obviously not taken heed of the precedent set in relation
  to
    the Sydney Olympic Web site.

    >From my experience, citing legislation, and even better, referring to
  specific
    test cases does at least get people to listen. Convincing them to act is
    another issue. My preferred approach is to to refer to legislation within
  the
    context of an overall presentation on why Web sites should be accessible.
  Such
    a presentation presents all of the compelling arguments without ignoring
  the
    primary focus being that every person has a right to access information
  and
    participate regardless of disability, socio-economic circumstances and
  their
    geographical location. At the end of the day though, I believe that in
  many
    cases, the most compelling argument for many companies will be the
  legislative
    implications arising from failure to make their Web site accessible.

    -------------------------------------------
    Denise

    Dr Denise L Wood
    Lecturer: Professional Development (online teaching and learning)
    University of South Australia
    CE Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000
    Ph:    (61 8) 8302 2172 / (61 8) 8302 4472 (Tuesdays & Thursdays)
    Fax:  (61 8) 8302 2363 / (61 8) 8302 4390
    Mob: (0413 648 260)

    Email:	Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au
    WWW:	http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?Name=Denise.Wood


  --
  Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
  134 136
  W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617
  258 5999
  Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
  (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
  France)


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 14 January 2002 06:08:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT