- From: Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 15:22:09 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Amar, I presume you are aware of the Maguire vs SOCOG case, from 2000. There, approximately, the ruling held that SOCOG (and their contractor) should have been aware of WCAG and should have implemented its requirements which were nt unduly burdensome, which would have ensured that the individual complaints that resulted from the initial complaint would in fact have been unnecessary. (As a result of the failure to respect the complainants rights by doing the work reasonably required in the first place, a damages award of AUD $20 000 was made, IIRC) The Commissioner's 'Reasons for the Decision' (i.e. a formal summary of the outcome) are available from the Independent Living Institute's website: https://www.independentliving.org/docs5/sydney-olympics-blind-accessibility-decision.html Regulation in many countries takes e.g. WCAG, or some technical standard derived from it, as a proxy for a "universal design" approach that has specific criteria to simplify determination of whether an a priori good faith effort as been made. There have been other legal cases decided in court, but I haven't followed them closely. (Of coourse, the majority of these cases are settled out of court precisely to avoid setting precedent for cases like yours :( And naturally, because companies prepared to spend thousands on legal fees to argue they don't have to help anyone occasionally suddenly want to quickly and effectively resolve the problems of complainants who insist on their rights). cheers Chaals On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 07:38:28 +0200, Amar Jain <amarjain@amarjain.com> wrote: > Is there any document which backs-up this statement and is there any > precedent where comprehensive audit has been asked by way of >a court > order? -- Charles "chaals" Nevile ConsenSys Lead Standards Architect
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2022 13:22:29 UTC