- From: Harry Woodrow <harrry@email.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:42:55 +0800
- To: "Martin Sloan" <martin.sloan@orange.net>, "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>
- Cc: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "'Denise Wood'" <Denise_Wood@operamail.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <charles@w3.org>
But maybe it is a *disability* accessibility problem. THe Australian HREOC has stated that it is still discrimination if the effect of any condition applies to the a group of disabled people more than to another group and has indicated that if low income was a result of a disability it may be possible that expenditure which is reasonable for a non disabled person to spend is a discriminatory barrier to others. I think it may be more an issue that needs to be fixed by people other than the designer. Harry Woodrow > However, let's continue and theorize that the plaintiff's lawyer > providesthe argument that their client cannot afford the money for > new equipment, or > is unable to upgrade their browser. He or she argues that, on those > grounds, my client should be providing content that is accessible > in older > browsers. This is no longer a *disability* accessibility problem. Perhaps it could be termed a 'social' accessibility problem. As long as there is no reason related to his disability that the plaintiff has to use the software there is arguably no case to answer.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 11:46:02 UTC