website compliance - is this true

[DuaneJackson]

I wasn't sure if I should post this in Legal or IT, so I opted for General.

I am about to use the following statement in a document I am writing. But is it true?


The legalities of ensuring your website is compliant to certain standards is still a grey area. There are some designers and agencies that scaremonger and suggest that if your site is not fully compliant then you will be vulnerable to legal action. As yet this is unproven.

Regardless of the legal implications, you should ensure that your website is compliant to the standards detailed below. This is best practice to ensure that your site is accessible to visitors with disabilities and that your site displays and performs correctly across a multitude of platforms and browsers.

[JoyDivision]

A well known Cinema had a website which was in accessible and the a blind campaigning group ask them to fix it or they would sue, the cinema took the website offline and reveloped it.

It is a grey area but I think there is a moral obligation to make sure the site can be accessed by all regardless of age, sex, physical ability and the technology they are using.

[Astaroth]

As far as I am aware there it is still very much a grey area but most are still recommending following http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ as best practice to avoid issues under the DDA

[Eagle]

The likes of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft et al will have to sort their sites out and comply first before the small fish...

[annethedonn]

My solicitor told me that you have to have your site compliant with the disability act so that deaf/blind people can easily access the information.

[JoyDivision]

The likes of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft et al will have to sort their sites out and comply first before the small fish...

Google isn't that bad, the code is not stricty complient but its simple and works on everything. Microsoft again have improved thier sites an awful lot in the last year.

I am not sure about Yahoo becuase I never use it.

[Russ]

Duanne

As far as I am aware from having recently attended a seminar with http://www.ebusinessclubs.co.uk/ it is a legal requirement for websites to now comply with the disability and discrimination act although, at the last count there had been only 3 prosecutions leading to 1 conviction?

This website might shed some additional light on the subject http://www.direct.gov.uk/Hl1/Help/Accessibility/fs/en

Russ

[DuaneJackson]

Thanks guys, you've been very helpful.

[mumper]

Found this.

“The Act makes it unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a disabled person: by refusing to provide (or deliberately not providing) any service which it provides (or is prepared to provide) to members of the public.”

On the Disability Rights Commission(DRC) website you will find the following quote:

“All organisations that provide goods, facilities or services to the public, whether paid for or for free, are covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, no matter how large or small they are.”

Readers should take careful note of the full context of the quotes above.
The Act only mentions websites as a possible solution to accessibility problems, not as a possible cause.
Not surprisingly in that case, no standards are mentioned, and never could be, as there are no standards in existence, only GUIDELINES.

[Eagle]

*
So how can they sue on the basis of guidelines?...

:)

[MinuWeb]

preparing to get moaned at......

Whilst I think it is right for sites sharing public information to be compliant I do not really see why a business site should be forced to do so, there are advertisments in magazines, newspapers & flyers etc that are not, and a website to a lot of business is nothing more than an online advertisement. If they lose business because it is not compliant then it is their fault.

[JoyDivision]

The difference is a lot of business sites offer a service, for example a cinemas website has the times and listings on.

Eagle they can sue if the website producers have made no effort to make sure that all members of society can access it.

[Eagle]

So, shoud I therefore have my site translated in to every language spoken by the UK populace? I don't think so.

Whilst the guidelines are good in essence, they are optimistic at best. :)

[DuaneJackson]

Has anyone seen the lid for this can of worms?
It's a very interesting and divisive subject.

All the people that I hear saying that it's a legal requirment and you MUST be accessible all seem to have an axe to grind (ie: they're accesibility consultants trying to drum up business)

[JoyDivision]

Well 3 companies have got into trouble for it so far,.

It also good business practise anyway, if your site is accessible it would be a lot better for SEO and it can be used with mobile phones etc.

I see it as the way you make websites rather than a threat or a problem in the design process. Having said it is also important for websites to look good.

I am not suggesting we only make sites in pure text as that would dull.

If your site at least complies to the most basic standards then you will probably get away with it. Make sure all browsers can access it (i.e no flash and be careful with JavaScript) use CSS, use accesskeys, try to avoid tables for layout etc if you follow these rules then your site should be fine.

[JoyDivision]

I have just pulled this out of the bibiography of my dissertation it might be quite useful

Author unknown (2005), Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) & Web Accessibility,
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-websitelegal-
requirements.shtml, [February 2005].

Author unknown (year unknown), Disability Discrimination Act 1995,
http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/part3, [February 2005].

[mumper]

I read somewhere that the discretionary income from the UK's 10 million disabled people is £50 billion per year. This figure I believe covers all types of disabilities. I realise that a fairly high percentage of them would have no trouble using non-compliant sites. However, for the ones that need a compliant site that's still a big potential market by anyone's standards.

[Richard Conyard]

Pity I came at this one rather late since it's something we specialise in. First a few bits and pieces.

It's been in law since 1999, not 2004

No UK company has been sued (which is the only legal recourse here), for their website falling foul of the DDA. The earlier example of 3 companies, 1 successfully is BS

The guidelines from W3C are a step in the right direction, but are not clear to follow. They are working on version 2 of these which IMHO will be a lot better, but not perfect. They split over 3 levels (A, AA, AAA), it is widely held that a single A rating will suffice as reasonable adjustment, but there is no case law to prove this.

The single A reasoning is because of the local government target earlier this year of acheiving the same thing across all their sites.

Here is the clincher, you don't have to have an accessible website provided you provide the same services in an accessible manner elsewhere.

Any questions shout, ignoring the scaremongering there are valid reasons for going down the guidelines route and I wish more companies would.

[Enigma121]

I think that the issue here is this.

It makes good business sense to have an accessible website, at least to single A standard.

This is particularly true if your target market is over 40, as the percentage of people with failing eyesight increases dramatically at this point. An accessible site allows the text sizing to be increased with minimal effort - opening up the site to this target market.

Many, many customers are using the web to shop and many of these customers are older people who perhaps don't want to drive to out of town shopping centers.

I'm seeing BIG business opportunity here myself. Anyone else?

Oh BTW, we are a little biased as we offer accessibility advice / modifications service. But if you have the skills to do this why not make more of the web accessible?

[Richard Conyard]

I guess it must be like painters and their houses engima ;-)

For the non-technical people on the board this is why a lot of the reputable web design and development companies on here seem to get het up about what must seem the most mundane of things.

Any one with a computer can create a web page. Infact now days they don't even need to learn what goes on, Microsoft Word can do most of it for you. The trouble is it's not done properly, it's unlikely to leave you with any additional custom and there are (albeit fuzzy), guidelines and laws that could get you into trouble. However because it's straightforward to do, and because like most services technical there is a reliance on the technical person being honest and knowing what they are doing to save you having to understand all that technobabble there are plenty of companies that will be suckered by these guys.