[thelist] targeting effectively

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

Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers

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



Subject:    Re: [thelist] targeting effectively


>Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers
>
>>The position, rather, is "The expectation is that it will be 100%
>>compliant. If you wish to deviate from that, it's not impossible, but
>>deviations will be managed by exception - you need to make a case
complete
>>with an impact assessment to do so"

>So we agree, right?

Yes, with the proviso that for WAI Priority 1 issues, you simply wouldn't
get signoff. Note that offering access to core functionality without
requiring client-side scripting is a Priority 1 issue. See the w3.org URL I
cited below

>>Although in an increasing number of environments, making a site which
>>requires client-side scripting (Javascript, Java, Flash etc) to operate
its
>>core functionality is getting very, very heavy slaps from legal
>>departments:
>>http://www.tomw.net.au/2001/bat2001.html
>http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-scripts
>http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-2/sloan.html#5.1
>
>Note that in the UK, there is also legislation covering discrimination in
>employment, so a JS-requiring CMS is also in trouble.

>Then that would be part of the "case by case" assessment we both
>advocate ... but trial lawyers suck ...

Unlikely to get to trial (even AOL settled out of court), because if the
client's legal people are half-way paying attention, you won't get legal
signoff for an inaccessible site.

>the humor of the "CAUTION:
>HOT" message on coffee cups wore out years ago.

Interesting how that case is always mis-cited, eh?

>And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there has never
>been a successful case where a non-governmental site was forced to
>put alt and title tags on all their images.

http://www.tomw.net.au/2001/bat2001.html although the timing of the case,
and the incompetance of the site developers made it a bit pointless.

And if you think that that's all accessibility consists of, might I suggest
you read the WAI list?

And there are *plenty* of sites which their internal legal people have
forced accessibility into the site design because of
http://www.drc.org.uk/drc/InformationAndLegislation/Page321.asp

>The accessibility laws
>only apply to governmental sites ... just like it's a private
>company's prerogative to make their website accessible.

Um maybe in your country... for the time being.

Cheers
Martin


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

This e-mail is sent by the above named in their
individual, non-business capacity and is not on
behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers may monitor outgoing and incoming
e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and
telecommunications systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.