- From: Michael Bowen <fizzbowen@mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 04:06:59 -0700
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Nick, Could you please provide a more detailed citation for the blind user's lawsuit? It would be very interesting to read the specific claims and findings. Thanks, --MB At 01:25 2001/09/24, Nick Kew wrote: > (2) The perceptive observation "lots of websites out there > don't validate - including household-name companies." > >Do remember: household-name companies expect people to visit *because of* >the name and *in spite of* dreadful websites. Can you afford that luxury? > >Even if you can, do you want to risk being on the wrong side of a lawsuit >if your site proves inaccessible to - for instance - a disabled person who >cannot use a 'conventional' browser? Accessibility is the law in this >and other countries. Whilst validation doesn't guarantee accessibility >(there is no complete substitute for common sense), it is an important >component of exercising "due diligence". It is now just over a year >since a court first awarded damages to a blind user against the owners >of a website he found inaccessible (Maguire vs SOCOG, August 2000).
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 07:07:08 UTC