On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Tom Hukins wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:49:27AM -0800, jonah wrote: > >> This is 'specially bad for an academic institution since IIRC UK >> Universities are legally required to adhere to the W3C WAI guidelines >> (priority 1 and 2) under the Special Educational Needs and Disability >> Act 2001. > > I only have second hand knowledge of Senda, but I've never heard that > before. I believe the Act expects institutions to provide acceptable > alternatives for inaccessible content but does not enforce any > particular requirements.
Well, ok, that was a very slight exaggeration. SENDA doesn't explicitly state that you must adhere to WAI p1 and 2. It does, as you say, simply require that materials and services are accessable to all. However, since WAI p1 and 2 were cited in the Australian "Maguire vs Sydney Olympic Comission" case in 2000, the general legal advice has been that following those WAI standards (probably) covers your arse in terms of SENDA[0]. WAI priority one and two are the de facto standards to which University websites should adhere in order to comply with SENDA. > I also gather that the enforcers of the act hope to work with > institutions that provide non-compliant content rather than > instigating legal action. I should hope so too: clobbering cash-strapped Unis with large fines isn't ging to help them provide access to their services and materials for the disabled, is it? > > You're all much better at ranting than I am. > > I've tried to restrain myself. Do I win a prize? I award you four thousand jonah points. Spend them wisely. -- matt "I am not paid to listen to this drivel. You are a terminal fool." - William S. Burroughs [0] Usual disclaimers apply.
