- From: Chaals Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:18:07 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <op.zmapshqknd6f5a@ordhord.home>
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 02:13:48 +0200, Dan Paguirigan, Jr <danp@hawaii.edu> wrote: > Aloha Everyone, > > Regarding ADA / WCAG compliance, if an organization/institution website > has a link to an external website like YouTube, Facebook, etc. with > content that was >created and used for by the organization (How to > videos, documentation, etc.). Will that content have to be accessible? Regarding ADA: I'm an Australian in Europe and haven't read the legislation. If you are looking to undersstand the minimum responsibility of the organisation, you need a lawyer to find the precise niceties. Regarding WCAG, if the content is part of the collection of information that an organisation provides, then the details of its URL are as irrelevant as the details of who actually did the work. If it does not meet some WCAG requirement, then some part of your content is not conformant, and therefore it is probably not accessible to some people with disabilities. Note of course that if the content is one of a range of alternative versions, you may have made it accessible through some other means, such as the example Karen cited. > If so, who would be responsible for the content in the case of legal > issues? There is some general law about who is responsible for content produced and published via third-party services, and the rough summary is "if you put it there or caused it to be put there, it's your responsibility". In thinking about responsibility, if you chose to tell people they have to use something, then you also usually accept responsibility for that thing being fit for purpose. cheers Chaals -- Chaals: Charles (McCathie) Nevile find more at https://yandex.com Using Opera's long-abandoned mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ Is there really still nothing better?
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2018 12:18:51 UTC