- From: Brian Kelly <lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:18:08 -0000
- To: "'WAI Interest Group'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think my original posting has been misunderstood. I wanted to know if it's true that websites have been taken down as a result of the ADA - not why they're are behaving unethically, or that we're well rid of them. I'm still interested in hearing an answer. I'd also be interested to know the reasons they give - if this is the case. Is it due to the costs (real or perceived) in making the site accessible, worries about legal bills, or something else. Thanks Brian -----Original Message----- From: Brian Kelly <lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk> To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com> Cc: 'WAI Interest Group' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 8:37 AM Subject: Can ADA be counterproductive (was Re: Legal leg to stand on?) > >Kynn Bartlett said: > > >> My _guess_ is that you won't be able to use this approach on them. >> I would suspect that an economic motive would work better rather >> than a legal one > >Kynn's comments (which I'd agree with - especially as the ADA is not >relevant to most of the world!) reminds me that I've heard rumours that some >websites have been removed, rather than made accessible, when threatened >with the ADA. Can anyone confirm this? > >Thanks > >Brian Kelly >------------------------------------------------------ >Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus >UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, England, BA2 7AY >Email: b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk URL: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ >Homepage: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/b.kelly.html >Phone: 01225 323943 FAX: 01225 826838 >
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 1999 11:20:10 UTC