W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics

From: Harry Woodrow <harrry@email.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:37:56 +0800
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Denise Wood" <Denise_Wood@operamail.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: <charles@w3.org>
from Web Accessibility and the DDA (Martin Sloan)
in section 5.2
It is submitted that there is a definite correlation between the services of
a builder and that of a Web site designer - especially in the light of the
potential legal requirements of the DDA.  Therefore it is argued there is an
implied contractual duty upon Web designers to carry out their work in a
competent manner using 'the skill and care of a competent workman.' Further,
the obligation to follow recognised standards and practices' would surely
include a requirement to design the Web site with WAI Guidelines
end quote
From this opinion it would appear that the fact that you were only hired to
do something would not be a defence to a clame for damages, with consequent
financial loss and damage to reputation.

Harry Woodrow

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
Sent: Monday, 14 January 2002 7:30 AM
To: Harry Woodrow; Denise Wood; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: charles@w3.org
Subject: RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics

At 10:08 PM +0800 1/13/02, Harry Woodrow wrote:
>I agree that the attitudes of both companies and designers is important but
>it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation.  Can I as a designer morally or
>legally rely on the "I was only following orders \" defence.

Probably, if that's what your contract stipulates and what you were
hired to do.  Let's not start comparing making a bad web design with
other incidents of "only following orders" that have had far more
serious consequences.

Received on Sunday, 13 January 2002 22:38:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:06 UTC