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

Re: RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics

From: Martin Sloan <martin.sloan@orange.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:00:35 GMT
To: RUST Randal <RRust@COVANSYS.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>, "'charles@w3.org'" <charles@w3.org>
Message-ID: <12bdc1082b.1082b12bdc@orange.net>
----- Original Message -----
from: RUST Randal <RRust@COVANSYS.com>
date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:40 pm
subject: RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics
> My client has followed all of the recommended standards of WCAG 
> Level AAA,
> along with other W3C recommendations and Section 508, so I know 
> that the
> problem in not my client's site.  
> Upon further investigation, I find out that the plaintff has been 
> accessingthe internet with IE 4 or lower, or Netscape 4.7 or 
> lower, then I would
> expect the court would clear my client of any wrongdoing.
This is reasonable. The UK Act requires the service provider (ie your 
client) to make reasonable enquiries and you have done so, as you have 
complied with various guidelines etc.

The fact that the problem lies with using an older browser, rather than 
a newer one means that the accessibility problem has not arisen as a 
result of the disability. The UK code of practice gives the following 

A group of football fans travel to the opposing team's ground and 
amongst them is someone with cerebal palsy. If the entire coachload is 
turned back because of this then discrimination will be taking place.

However, if the same group have been in the pub for several hours 
beforehand and they are *all* drunk and being abusive (including the 
person with cerebal palsy) then it would not be discrimination to turn 
them all back.

> However, let's continue and theorize that the plaintiff's lawyer 
> providesthe argument that their client cannot afford the money for 
> new equipment, or
> is unable to upgrade their browser.  He or she argues that, on those
> grounds, my client should be providing content that is accessible 
> in older
> browsers.
This is no longer a *disability* accessibility problem. Perhaps it 
could be termed a 'social' accessibility problem. As long as there is 
no reason related to his disability that the plaintiff has to use the 
software there is arguably no case to answer.
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 11:01:08 UTC

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