- From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:18:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Good morning everyone, Before I start let me express my appreciation to each of you for your commitment to inclusion. At the end of the day the resources alone at least for me fortifies my hope. I have what I trust is a simple question, although the situation is a tad complex. A couple of years back at least we discussed the technical baseline clause, how some companies use this to avoid compliance even with basic things like keyboard functioning by stating they use say jaws, You must as well. My understanding then was that a company cannot place such requirements on the general public. Can anyone document for me if this remains the case? I have one of those situations that if I used what the company is claiming I must use...it would actually do me physical harm. so I want to share with the mediator that making such requirements violates WACG in general. I am in Ontario and was told privately that the AODA incorporates WACG into its standards. The Ontario Human Rights Code has a greater level of mandate undue hardship, meaning regardless the company is violating the latter, but they are claiming the former. Thoughts? Thanks, Kare
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2016 15:19:08 UTC