Hi,
The WCAG guidelines state:
[Priority 1]
A Web content developer must satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one
or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the
document. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some
groups to be able to use Web documents.
[Priority 2]
A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one
or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the
document. Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers
to accessing Web documents.
-----------------
Given that meeting Priority 2 (AA) guidelines removes "significant
barriers" it follows that not meeting them means that your Website
contains significant barriers to accessibility.
That being the case, to be "fairly safe of saying that you've taken
'reasonable care'", would suggest that you aim meet AA standards.
If meeting a AA guideline would mean undue costs (monetary or otherwise)
then that would come under the test of "reasonableness".
On the other hand, if you fail to follow a AA guideline which can be
easily implemented (e.g. if you meet level A guidelines and don't bother
to implement further guidelines) then I would think you are on very shaky
ground in saying you have taken reasonable care.
On Thu, August 21, 2008 8:45 am, Elizabeth Spiegel wrote:
> Hi Tee
>
> Like most things in the law, there's no clear-cut answer to that.
>
> Like the DDA in the UK (as I understand it), it's up to an individual to
> make a complaint that they have been discriminated by on the basis of
> their
> disability. The HREOC guidelines tend to suggest that if you've built
> your
> site to at least WCAG level A you should be fairly safe saying that you've
> taken 'reasonable care'. Government websites are required to reach level A
> -
> there's an interesting argument going on at the moment re the new
> http://www.grocerychoice.com.au/ website:
> http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24141741-15319,00.html
>
> William noted that "... for commercial organisations, if they are not
> providing a service where they are the sole provider and access point, the
> lines get fuzzy on what is and is not disciminatory." I'm not sure that
> he's right in that: there haven't been any cases regarding websites, but
> there has been at least one case regarding access to educational services
> and the (private) school concerned wasn't sole provider.
>
>
> Elizabeth Spiegel
> Web editing
> 0409 986 158
> GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001
> www.spiegelweb.com.au
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of tee
> Sent: Monday, 18 August 2008 12:19 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Lawsuits for inaccessible websites
>
> Thanks for the info, Elizabeth.
>
> Aussie members in this list must be very proud of this law :-) Let's
> just hope no gold-digger lawyer sees an opportunity there!
>
> Is the requirement for this law higher per WCAG guidelines (A, AA, or
> AAA)? For example, Section 508 is really low standard in my opinion.
>
> tee
>
> On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:07 PM, Elizabeth Spiegel wrote:
>
>> Hi Tee
>>
>> In Australia, websites are covered by Disability Discrimination
>> legislation,
>> although there has only been one successful suit to date. Bruce
>> Maguire was
>> awarded damages of $20,000 against SOCOG in 2000: full details here:
>>
> http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/decisions/comdec/2000/DD000120.htm
>>
>>
>> Note that the target was not by any measure a 'small business'. HREOC
>> provides advisory notes
>> http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html
>>
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *******************************************************************
>
>
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
