"The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has made it a legal requirement for companies and organisations to ensure that all can access their services and information. This act directly applies to websites and Internet services."
It covers all "provision of services", so internet trading comes within its remit. The act itself is at:
formatting link
and the RNIB's take on it is at:
formatting link
Ideally, double-A compliance with W3C website accessibility guidelines (WAG):
The 1995 act makes no menti "Since October 1999 they have had to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, such as providing extra help or making changes to the way they provide their services. "
So a website owner may well be fullfilling the requirements of the DDA by providing extra help where said website is not accessible for some reason.
Yes, I was already aware of that. The crucial points to me are under the section headed "Duty of providers of services to make adjustments" where there is a clear test of reasonableness, not a blanket requirement.
formatting link
I had already found that and found it a little lacking in that there's no back-up to their references to the changes made in 1999 and 2004. It states "The part of the DDA that states websites must be made accessible came into force on 1 October 1999" but no link to which part of the act they are referring.
My interpretation is still that just as an accessible website can be used to ensure services are available to the disabled, the converse is true that other means can be used to deliver a service where a web site is not accessible for some reason. Again from the act "provide a reasonable alternative method of making the service in question available to disabled persons".
I just object to the blanket statement by one poster that a website
*has* to be accessible.
That wasn't quite what I meant, but rather how do you determine when a website is providing a service or not?
"Martin Wynne" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
And if you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote rather than what you appear to think I wrote I thanked your for it, explained that I was happy to run it as I have the facility to run unknown software in a sandbox and simply suggested that when you do post it to your site you add a little explanation of the format ... which is what according to this post I'm replying to is something that you intend to do.
So what's your problem?
Would you care to point out where I have done any of that?
...
What, like you do here?
No, I said that without knowing what software you used to create the .exe video the possibility exists that you may have used a feebie that contains spy or other malware - not being the creator of it you wouldn't know unless you had made a study of it was never a comment about your templot software.
It's also a matter of good manners, if you expect someone to download and run an executable file it is considered polite to tell them about it. Templot is one thing created yourself, folks downloading it know what to expect - even if like me they not be able to use it to the full "out of the box" so to speak.
Likewise *.avi, *.mpg, *.wmf etc etc etc ... folks know what to expect and what to do with it. An exe is an unknown quantity especially if undocumented. Anyway as you are going to do what I politely suggested then great, Templot looks good, it's something I would have considered again prior to starting my next layout and your videos etc may well have convinced me to part with money.
Maybe someone should have told that to Hornby - I couldn't read their 2004 catalogue price list without a magnifying glass, so goodness knows what sort of problems some of those with serious visual problems would have had.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Martin, I'll bet you now wish you'd never stepped away from your controlled environment and into the infamous badlands known as UKRMR.
Any male person who wears a red leotard ought to be forced to get his chest waxed first. I thought that looked absolutely terrible. Good thing they only showed a few seconds of it on the BBC news.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.