Comments on: Disability rights and Australian websites confusion

By: James Oppenheim

James Oppenheim — Sun, 06 May 2007 08:41:08 +0000

@Jaybee - Thanks for providing that information, I will definitely keep an eye on your ‘Do you need to comply?’ link.

@Sean - Thank you for your comment. That really clears everything up for me now. The fact that there is actually a law and it is setup to be flexible to meet the needs of each complaint makes perfect sense now. However, I still believe there should be some minimum set of standards set in place for all Australian websites.

By: Sean McManus

Sean McManus — Tue, 01 May 2007 18:18:17 +0000

I think this is covered in existing disability discrimination law in Australia, the same law that applied in the SOCOG case you cite. The advantage with not prescribing guidelines is that the law can more easily adapt to new technologies. It would also be difficult to enforce anything more than Priority 1 by law, but that would send the signal to many sites that their accessibility journey was over at that point. Depending on their content, design and audience, the bigger accessibility barriers might be defined by lower priority checkpoints. By making the law respond to individual complaints, it takes on a flexibility that means each site and complaint can be assessed on its own merits and in light of what might or might not be reasonable adjustments for the site owner to make. That said, it is unfortunate that there is so little case law worldwide to help site owners to understand what the issues are, what the legal risks are and what the remedies could be.

There’s a review of the SOCOG case here:
http://www.contenu.nu/socog.html

By: Jaybee

Jaybee — Tue, 01 May 2007 15:12:33 +0000

A group of us have been trying to keep an eye on legislation worldwide and you’re right, it can be very confusing. We have a list that we attempt to keep up to date here.

The part that is relevant to you is Disability Discrimination Advisory Notes Version 3.2, 2002 at point 2.2::

The provision of information and online services through the Worldwide Web is a service covered by the DDA. Equal access for people with a disability in this area is required by the DDA where it can reasonably be provided.

This requirement applies to any individual or organisation developing a Worldwide Web page in Australia, or placing or maintaining a Web page on an Australian server. This includes pages developed or maintained for purposes relating to employment; education; provision of services including professional services, banking, insurance or financial services, entertainment or recreation, telecommunications services, public transport services, or government services; sale or rental of real estate; sport; activities of voluntary associations; or administration of Commonwealth laws or programs. All these are areas specifically covered by the DDA.

In addition to these specific areas, provision of any other information or other goods, services or facilities through the Internet is in itself a service, and as such, discrimination in the provision of this service is covered by the DDA. The DDA applies to services whether provided for payment or not.

As to your question, it’s similar in the UK. There IS a law, it’s the Disability Discrimination Act and it should be followed by all but, it’s not enforced. The RNIB in the UK have approached large companies who have backed down and done the needed work so nothing has gone to court. Nobody has a clue what will happen if it does.

There’s the Target DIY case which is currently at appeal in the US and there’s the Latif vs. PMI case where a UK citizen has successfully sued a US company under the UK DDA. This is also at appeal but will be interesting if she wins.

Thing is, it’s not difficult to provide basic levels of accessibility on most sites. Once you’ve done one the functionality can be carried over to the next one. Apart from covering your backside against the day someone does start to enforce it, it kind of feels like it’s the right thing to do anyway.