- From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:14:09 +0100 (BST)
- To: Michael Bowen <fizzbowen@mindspring.com>
- cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Michael Bowen wrote: > 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. http://www.google.com/search?q=Maguire%20vs%20SOCOG not hard. L. > 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). <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 07:15:53 UTC