- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:37:38 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 26/04/2020 21:56, James A. wrote: [...] > On the points Patrick raised about the implications of adding SCs which then become law, outside of the US, most regulations and jurisdictions take into accounts that it is challenging for complex websites to meet all accessibility requirements. Instead they encourage transparency through providing accessible alternatives and ongoing improvements while working towards full compliance. But the point is that not passing SCs is non-compliance still. So whether it's "illegal" (and yes, I'm exagerating the term here) or just "you're non-compliant and need to be transparent in how you're going towards compliance", the end result is still the same - not passing (for a clear-cut definition of "passing") WCAG will be found as a failure. So if SCs define "dos" and "don'ts", then not adhering to that will lead to legal challenges (not on-the-spot fines, but rather "you need to show how you're going to fix it"). Long story short, while AGWG may not feel like they're defining "legal design requirements", the reality will be that we are? P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Monday, 27 April 2020 09:37:53 UTC