[thelist] targeting effectively

[Erik Mattheis]

>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?

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

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

__________________________________________
- Erik Mattheis

(612) 377 2272
http://goZz.com/

__________________________________________