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

RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics

From: Martin Sloan <martin.sloan@orange.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:28:01 -0000
Message-ID: <01C19E2E.264F4CE0.martin.sloan@orange.net>
To: "'Nick Kew'" <nick@webthing.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I would agree. An approach like this allows at least some sort of 'handrail' for designers and would be perfectly reasonable.

On Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:51 PM, Nick Kew [SMTP:nick@webthing.com] wrote:
> Rather than discussing "how applicable is/isn't SOCOG internationally?",
> can I suggest a different perspective?
> Suppose a case is going to court in your country.  Someone asks you to
> assess the case as expert witness - maybe a real possibility for some
> on this list.
> Apart from a few yessirs to the lawyers, what do you consider?
> I expect the lawyers to deal with SOCOG, so that's not my business.
> I would expect to address the question: has the entity responsible for
> the website in question exercised due diligence?  As a key element of
> this, I will assess what they've done against the best published
> guidelines a competent web developer could reasonably expect to use:
> the WCAG.  What might be the outcome?
> If the problem arises in a failure to comply with WCAG, I will of course
> have to say so.  I will also ask the site owners why the site fails to
> comply, and tell the court whether or not I am satisfied with the
> answer (if any).
> Alternatively, if the problem has arisen in spite of full WCAG
> compliance, I will expect to advise that they have indeed exercised
> due diligence.
> IANAL, but it seems to me that a court in any country might very
> well consider arguments based on something like the above process.
> -- 
> Nick Kew
> Site Valet - the mark of Quality on the Web.
> <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 20:40:10 UTC

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