Re: RE: legal responsibility

----- Original Message -----
from: Denise Wood <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>
date: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:31 pm
subject: RE: legal responsibility

> Simon makes a really important point about trying to negotiate 
> with the
> developers to see if they will make the required changes. We have 
> had some
> success in our endeavors with a particular package and the 
> developer has
> benefited because the product will be Section 508 compliant in the 
> next release.
The fact that more and more suppliers are having to make their products 
compliant under s.508 means that the duty on the service provider is 
even greater. I don't know what the package that Julian's organisation 
bought does, but if there *is* an accessible product that does the same 
thing then they will have very few grounds for justification if it was 
bought when the optional product was on the market.

The flipside of this is that if no accessible products of that type 
were available when it was purchased and it involved fairly substantial 
investment, the inaccessibility probably could be justified for a 
period of time until the product could be reasonably expected to 
require updating etc.

martin.
--
Martin Sloan
Glasgow Graduate School of Law
E: martin.sloan@orange.net
T: 0141 586 8917
M: 07974 655170

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 09:36:42 UTC