Re: Legal requirements RE: statistics

ah, but they are not officially turned out yet which is a small but in
many circles sugnificant difference.  then, there is also the matter of
choice.  when you go to a web site doing public business, you have law.
when you personally choose software, that is a different matter but then
there is also law if your funds are attached to some entitlement or
another which may be subject to an appropriate legal remedy.

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: "Martin Sloan" <>
Cc: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <>; "'Harry Woodrow'"
<>; "'Denise Wood'" <>;
<>; <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: Legal requirements RE: statistics

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
> 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

Is the W3C in trouble for having a site which is not triple-AAA

> Whilst the WCAG may not be the perfect solution as regards a legal
test, it
> is the best on offer and they are increasingly being adopted, and will
> continue to be, as the way that accessibility is tested against
> laws. There is a very strong and coherent argument for saying that an
> inaccessible web site breaches disability rights legislation and the
> offers the best possible handle for measuring the vague term of
> 'accessibility'.

Then why aren't more lawsuits being filed?  Is there a shortage of
ambulance chasing lawyers or something?


PS:  To be clear on where I stand -- of course I am for accessibility,
     but that doesn't mean that I believe that all arguments made for
     accessibility are necessarily correct or even useful.  Perhaps it's
     a uniquely American perspective -- the idea that the government
     should NOT necessarily be required to get involved in every
     possible aspect of regulation.  Maybe it's a futile hope; I am
     sure that thanks to logic like that which you're espousing now,
     communications media such as the Web or discussion lists will
     quickly, within a few decades, be legislated into worthlessness.
     Nonetheless, I continue to cling to my naive belief that
     education and social responsibility may solve this problem
     -before- the governments of the world legislate expression on
     the web.

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 07:19:05 UTC