E-mail List Archives

Re: No decision from the Appeals court

for

From: Glenda
Date: Sep 30, 2004 12:50PM


Kevin, sometimes simplisticity is the most effective!

So, maybe the next step is to figure out to speak 'web accessibility' in
business language? And to do this fairly quickly, before the legislators
swoop in. Personally, I would like to see way more info and figures for the
business case. I now have a potential opportunity to work with Chambers of
Commerce And I'm going to need that sort of information to get them to bite.

Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: khall51 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:28 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] No decision from the Appeals court



Said in a paragraph what I took 10 e-mails to get at...

-Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: "glenda"
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:25 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] No decision from the Appeals court


Perhaps the key is to keep this issue out of the legal system and to sell
business on the benefits of web accessibility by speaking in business
language rather than civil rights language.

Glenda

-----Original Message-----
From: khall51 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 10:10 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] No decision from the Appeals court



Actually, I thought I was pointing out the incompetence of U.S. politicians,
particularly in the area of modern technology (say, post-rotary telephone).
I suppose my attempt at a bit of self deprecating humor fell short there.

Does anyone know how the law would handle a site that was changed
drastically after a suit was filed? Particularly if the old pages cited in
the suit were deleted or updated as a part of the change? Many places don't
archive all old versions of their web sites as a standard practice so this
seems like it could happen. Is that destroying evidence? Would the suit then
be without merit because the breach is corrected or is the suit still valid
based on the fact that at one time the site was inaccessible? This is a bit
past my level of legal acumen.

I agree that the 'until user agent' statements in the WCAG would be
seriously problematic for anyone trying to hold a site to that standard in
court. I imagine a decent lawyer could argue that point to death. They are
guidelines, not laws, and are written with that in mind. I don't think it's
a very good idea to base legal cases on them.

Regards,
-Kevin Hall

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.brockington [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:49 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] No decision from the Appeals court


-----Original Message-----
From: khall51 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: 30 September 2004 15:55
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] No decision from the Appeals court

> The UK web accessibility policy seems to tie itself to the W3C
Accessibility Guidelines
Yes, but only applies to Government Sites.

> ... I wonder if court cases and decisions could be challenged based on
differences between versions of the standard?

Of much more interest would be if someone is sued for a breach, and then the
breach disappears from the WCAG before the case comes to court. Not very
likely I suppose, but certainly possible.
I would have to partially refute your point regarding changes to the
standard
- where actions such as this are concerned, the offense is not deemed to
have
occurred until after the defendant has been informed of the alleged breach,
although it is possible that the only further defense would be to turn off
the offending site immediately, with the massive change to accessibility
that
that would mean!

I would also like to see someone argue in court over the various 'Until User
Agents...' statements that pepper the WCAG (NB Any remember what the 'G'
stands for?)

My point about US Law was in no way intended to mean that I consider US
politicians to be any less competent than their UK /EU (or Canadian,
Australian... ) couterparts. Rather I wished to point out that even laws
such
as Copyright (fairly consistent, and reasonable until a few years ago), vary
sufficiently across borders to lead to some very interesting import/export
businesses. Given that the Internet is barely even aware of those borders,
Laws aimed at Non-National bodies would never be better than a joke - at
least until such time as a Global Government appears.

Mike


********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender
immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or
disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.btsyntegra.com

********************************************************************

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.770 / Virus Database: 517 - Release Date: 9/27/04

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.770 / Virus Database: 517 - Release Date: 9/27/04

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.770 / Virus Database: 517 - Release Date: 9/27/04

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.770 / Virus Database: 517 - Release Date: 9/27/04