- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:02:11 -0500 (EST)
- To: <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>
- cc: Martin Sloan <martin.sloan@orange.net>, "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "'Harry Woodrow'" <harrry@email.com>, "'Denise Wood'" <Denise_Wood@operamail.com>, "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
With regard to browsers it will be interesting to see what the final result of the NFB/AOL case is - as far as I am aware the case was temporarily set aside in the hopes that the two parties could reach agreement. Given that part of that case was about browsers, it has the potential to have the same impact in that area that the SOCOG case had for content. An alternative scenario in Australia is the case of courseware tools which are designed to provide publishing, chat systems, etc. I know that there are real contracts on hold because these tools do not meet the Authoring Tool Accessibiltiy Guidelines at any level, and the people who are potentially committing large sums of money to these systems, plus support and training, are concerned about being stuck with something expensive and still needing to provide a paralell alternative that is accessible. Again, if a student at a University brought a case against such software, it has the potential to create precedent. Of course nobody knows what a court will do until afterwards, although lawyers are paid for their ability to have a pretty well educated guess. I think the reason people avoid courts is because they don't know how they work, and are scared off. (This is a common tactic in consumer cases - if a business tells someone to take them to court over something which has caused a few hundred dollars worth of damage, or inconvenienced them for a few days, they know that most people won't bother. It applies in larger cases as well). So the W3C is not in trouble for not having a triple-A compliant site if nobody makes a way for them to be in trouble. (HREOC, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, has stated that it is probably itself, in violation of Australian legal requirements it enforces...) I don't think the legal argument is the only argument there is, I don't think it is the best reason for accessibility, but I think it is helpful to be as aware of how it might work as possible, because it is an argument that does resonate with people whose decisions include weighing financial and PR responsibilities. cheers Charles On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com wrote: I wrote: > > Would you likewise state that browser makers who do not enforce > > the HTML 4.01 standard are likely to be found violation of quasi- > > law? Martin wrote: > As far as I am aware, there is no law which requires that browser makers > encorporate the latest HTML standards into their browsers. What about the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines? They are produced by the W3C in the same process as that which produced the WCAG Recommendation, and hold the same status within the W3C. Should the developers of software fear lawsuits for not following UAAG if web developers fear lawsuits (or criminal penalties or whatever) based on WCAG? Is the W3C in trouble for having a site which is not triple-AAA compliant? Then why aren't more lawsuits being filed? Is there a shortage of ambulance chasing lawyers or something? --Kynn
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 06:03:27 UTC