[thelist] Dropdowns - good or bad?

[martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com]

Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers

-------------------- Start of message text --------------------





Please respond to thelist at lists.evolt.org
To:   thelist at lists.evolt.org
cc:   roselli at earthlink.net


Subject:  RE: [thelist] Dropdowns - good or bad?



aardvark [roselli at earthlink.net] noted:

>> are you in the US?

>No, UK.

See my previous comments about the UK's Disability Discrimination
Act


>> all mine... all martin's... there are a few others who are very
>> particular about that... as well as the three levels of WAI
>> compliance...

>But again, not the major corporates.

That's because there hasn't been a UK case brought (yet). Look
at the AOL case in the US. $1m in out-of-court settlement, plus probably
5 times that in development costs to make their software compliant.

I think that http://www.smile.co.uk/ are going to get a *major* kicking
over this - not only are they a bank (banks are specifically mentioned
in the legislation), but their parent company have a long track record
of supporting social justice initiatives.

You can't use the smile service without Java - non-reliance on client-
executed applications is about 1st on the WAI Priority 1 list.

That said, anyone got any idea how well screen readers cope with
https?

>> i think once you've got a handle on how to build accessible sites
> from the start, and experience doing them, building them that way
>> is no extra cost to the client... no, you can't do full-bore testing
>> with focus groups, but in our case, all of our sites are accessible
>> unless the client requests otherwise... even those really low-budget
>> ones...
Absolutely - it's like going from point A to point C: it's easier to go via
point B on the way, rather than back to it.

>In many ways, the low-budget ones seem to be the most compliant anyway!
The high-budget ones are generally managed by people unlike us,
who don't understand this stuff, and view it as an unnecessary cost.

This will change.

Cheers
Martin


--------------------- End of message text --------------------

The principal place of business of PricewaterhouseCoopers and its associate
partnerships is 1 Embankment Place, London WC2N 6NN where lists of the
partners' names are available for inspection. All partners in the associate
partnerships are authorised to conduct business as agents of, and all
contracts for services to clients are with, PricewaterhouseCoopers. The UK
firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers is authorised by the Institute of Chartered
Accountants in England and Wales to carry on investment business.
PricewaterhouseCoopers is a member of the world-wide
PricewaterhouseCoopers organisation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.