W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Discriminatory or not?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:34:09 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200402110834.i1B8Y9c03242@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

> to roll it out. Apparently, they can't change the timeframe.

Fairly typical of commercially developed software.  Company cash
flows are critically dependent on getting to market early, so
anything not perceived as essential for that will not get done.

> to end users, they would say (NOT IN THESE WORDS) 'for those who are unable
> to undertake the training for certain reasons, should contact the training
> team for one-on-one help.'
> 
> My question is, can this be seen as being discriminatory? Chaals you might

I am not a lawyer and don't know Australian law.  But my understanding
of UK law is that it is the company that is buying the product that
is responsible for providing an accessible service to their employees,
not the suppliers.  Especially in a B to B environment, it is impracticable
to put an implied requirement on a supplier, as they don't, in general,
know the full context in which their product will be used.  If you wanted
an accessible product, this should have been in the invitation to tender
and the subsequent contract terms.
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 03:49:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:31 UTC