W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: "Damages" Re: when a suit is in the rong?

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 06:59:28 -0500
To: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>, wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <000d01c2f2c5$fe54e1d0$6501a8c0@handsontech>

Yes, My reference has to do with incorrect use of tools and lack of
education on the part of some vendors and organizations in leading the way
toward broad accessibility.  For instance, we have discussed the use of the
summary tag for lay out tables on this list.  Sure, using it gets you past
some tool or other, but does it really improve accessibility?

On the other side, When the wcag best practices are followed, should not
someone be able to win or avoid a suit by someone because the site perhaps
fails a tool or does not carry their certification and they have been turned
away from application of that certification?

What I am aiming at here is to work to provide an awareness as in any venu
that there are things to be aware of when making a purchase or making an
arrangement with a service providor to provide accessibility services for
your organization.  This grew out of concern that some sites were deemed
accessible which did not meet wcag or 508 but the sites in question do not
fall into 508 so far.

I do not want to see someone sued because they spent a ton of money and got
organizational approval against getting sued nor do I want to see an
organization get sued because they apply the standards, have an accessible
site but are not certified by the suing organization.  The idea that "If you
pay me to certify your site I won't sue you" is quite repugnant to me
because it limits creativity, lowers the bar and also because someone else
may sue if they don't.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>
To: "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:08 AM
Subject: RE: "Damages" Re: when a suit is in the rong?



> In the case of SOCOG vs Maguire (the Sydney Olympics case) damages were
> set based on the fact that Bruce Maguire had suffered by not being able
> to participate in the general enjoyment of the Olympics.

To set these damages Maguire had to be unable to use the site. Hence the
accessibility problem was real, not determined solely by a tool, checklist
or any other theoretical model of accessibility such as David was referring
to.
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 06:59:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT