Just for information, it's called the DDA in the UK as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_Discrimination_Act_1995
Matthew. Le 30 septembre 2011 07:19, Ryan Schipper <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Rakesh, > > By the reference to the DDA, I'm assuming you're in Australia. > > By law, all services and information provided through the Internet > require DDA compliance (where reasonable). This is not surprising > considering the statistics: in 1988, 16% of Australians were disabled > ( > http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/9ba0bb65ce08ccc6ca2570820081db23/1618215db8a5c6abca25692d0083019d!OpenDocument > ). > Given the increasing capabilities in curative and palliative medicine > in 1st world countries, this number is only going to climb. > > There are a lot of resources available online to assist you in > designing and implementing DDA-compliant web sites. > > Click here for more info: > http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html > > -- Ryan Schipper > > On 30 September 2011 08:06, Rakesh <[email protected]> wrote: > > well its certainly true the foundations are probably shaky. > > From what I can gather, it seems to be an interpretation of the > Disability > > and Discrimination Act (DDA). > > Fortunately, the senior architect spoke to me earlier and says he is > close > > to having the decision reversed. The only down side is that we probably > > aren't DDA compliant anyway!! > > Rakesh > > > > On 29 September 2011 18:48, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> You could try to make the case based on something they understand. > >> > >> MONEY > >> > >> Tell them how much more it will cost, wasted time, and that no sales > come > >> from it. If you lay it out in a very logical way such that they > understand > >> it is a waste of time and money and won't affect the bottom line, then > you > >> have a chance. > >> > >> Or, you need to do some asking around to figure out why the company > wants > >> non-JS functionality. They might have a good reason or it could be > something > >> deeply seated that will be very hard to root out. > >> > >> I used to work for a company that mandated IE6 compatibility. It caused > >> nothing but trouble with the development. It was to ensure everyone > could > >> continue to use the application, but there was a catch. Users used IE6 > >> because that was the only browser that the site would work with. So of > >> course that was what all the reports would show and thus management > thought > >> they had to support that. There was no discussion of regressing nicely > or > >> changing requirements to use a new browser. That site was stuck in IE6 > and > >> nothing could be done to free it from those shackles. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Rakesh <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi folks, > >>> I would be interested in experiences/opnions about supporting non JS. > >>> My current. commercial, company insists that we need to maintain non JS > >>> functionality on our site. What this has done is complicate enormously > the > >>> front end and the back end. > >>> Going forward I would like to propose moving our architecture to GWT > but > >>> that would mean losing non JS support (but gaining so much more in > other > >>> areas). > >>> What do others do? Maintain a separate site? Choose not to support non > JS > >>> browsers (perhaps showing a page to call instead)? > >>> BTW, according to the stats we make zero sales from non JS visitors - > and > >>> it seems all the visitors are from our won testing dept!!! Somehow the > upper > >>> levels of business have got it into their heads that non JS version of > our > >>> site is mandatory (maybe even illegal not to do so). > >>> Thanks > >>> Rakesh > >>> > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >>> "The Java Posse" group. > >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> [email protected]. > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Robert Casto > >> www.robertcasto.com > >> www.sellerstoolbox.com > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "The Java Posse" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
