- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:53:30 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> (Ret'd), David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > On Aug 19, 2008, at 2:06 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote: > >> >> >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >>> Flickr is one of many public sites featuring user-generated >>> content that is mostly shared with friends and family, but which >>> is mostly visible to the general public. In terms of our moral >>> sensibilities about accessibility, it is more like a public >>> bulletin board where anyone can put up a poster, than like the >>> professional signage in a store or school. >> >> I do not use Flickr, but I do use Picasaweb, which I believe >> is analogous. On Picasaweb, albums can be public or private. >> Would those who seek to differentiate between public and >> private facilities in terms of accessibility therefore >> accept that a /public/ album is /public/, and must therefore >> meet all legal accessibility requirements ? > > It's not individuals who seek to differentiate, but also the law. My > best understanding is that US law on this includes two factors: > > 1) The facility in question is a public accommodation. This is a > legal term of art, and doesn't just mean "open / visible to the > public". For instance, posting a sign in my yard does not constitute > a public accommodation, even if it is visible to the general public. > But an apartment building could be, even if you have to live there > to be in the building at all. To correct myself, besides public accommodations, workplaces are also subject to various Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, but I don't think that affects the substance of my point. > > > 2) The responsible party is an institution such as a government or a > large business - small businesses and individuals are excepted. > > The way I see it, an individual posting a public photo on Flickr is > neither creating a public accommodation, nor acting as an > institution, in most cases. Nor is Flickr responsible, because they > are just providing a public forum, in the same way that a grocery > store might provide a public bulletin board. > > I believe in this case, the law is properly aligned with the correct > ethical result, which is that it ought not be mandatory for many > private individuals to incur extra cost in money or time for the > sake of accessibility, but it is mandatory for big businesses or > governments. > > Regards, > Maciej > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 00:54:11 UTC