Re: RE: RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics

I would say the question now becomes one of 'reasonableness'. But yes, 
the HREOC argument was what I was heading to. However, I would still 
have thought that if there was no disability/disability related 
financial reason for the user to be using older software/hardware that 
there would be no case.

----- Original Message -----
from: "Harry Woodrow" <harrry@email.com>
date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:42 pm
subject: RE: RE: Legal requirements RE: statistics

> But maybe it is a *disability* accessibility problem. THe 
> Australian HREOC
> has stated that it is still discrimination if the effect of any 
> conditionapplies to the a group of disabled people more than to 
> another group and has
> indicated that if low income was a result of a disability it may 
> be possible
> that expenditure which is reasonable for a non disabled person to 
> spend is a
> discriminatory barrier to others.
> 
> 
> I think it may be more an issue that needs to be fixed by people 
> other than
> the designer.
> 
> Harry Woodrow
> 
> 
> > 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 11:53:13 UTC