[WSG] Lisa Kerrigan/StateDevPolicy/DSD is out of the office.

2008-08-21 Thread lisa . kerrigan

I will be out of the office starting  21/08/2008 and will not return until
22/08/2008.

For Content Requests contact Matt Myers or Trevas Walton


**
Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development, 
Government of Victoria, Victoria, Australia.  

This e-mail and any attachments may contain privileged and confidential
information.   If you are not the intended recipient, you may not distribute
reproduce this e-mail or the attachments.   If you have received this message
in error, please notify us by return e-mail.

**



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Lawsuits for inaccessible websites

2008-08-21 Thread Elizabeth Spiegel
Hi Tee

Like most things in the law, there's no clear-cut answer to that.

Like the DDA in the UK (as I understand it), it's up to an individual to
make a complaint that they have been discriminated by on the basis of their
disability.  The HREOC guidelines tend to suggest that if you've built your
site to at least WCAG level A you should be fairly safe saying that you've
taken 'reasonable care'. Government websites are required to reach level A -
there's an interesting argument going on at the moment re the new
http://www.grocerychoice.com.au/ website:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24141741-15319,00.html 

William noted that ... for commercial organisations, if they are not
providing a service where they are the sole provider and access point, the
lines get fuzzy on what is and is not disciminatory.  I'm not sure that
he's right in that: there haven't been any cases regarding websites, but
there has been at least one case regarding access to educational services
and the (private) school concerned wasn't sole provider.


Elizabeth Spiegel
Web editing
0409 986 158
GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001
www.spiegelweb.com.au 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of tee
Sent: Monday, 18 August 2008 12:19 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Lawsuits for inaccessible websites

Thanks for the info, Elizabeth.

Aussie members in this list  must be very proud of this law :-) Let's  
just hope no gold-digger lawyer sees an opportunity there!

Is the requirement for this law higher per WCAG guidelines (A, AA, or  
AAA)? For example, Section 508 is really low standard in my opinion.

tee

On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:07 PM, Elizabeth Spiegel wrote:

 Hi Tee

 In Australia, websites are covered by Disability Discrimination  
 legislation,
 although there has only been one successful suit to date.  Bruce  
 Maguire was
 awarded damages of $20,000 against SOCOG in 2000: full details here:

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/decisions/comdec/2000/DD000120.htm


 Note that the target was not by any measure a 'small business'.  HREOC
 provides advisory notes
 http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Lawsuits for inaccessible websites

2008-08-21 Thread Rick Lecoat

On 21 Aug 2008, at 17:56, Jon Warner wrote:

If I hosted a party, of course I would do my best to accommodate  
everyone's needs but to receive a court summons several days later  
because i had not installed a wheelchair ramp, for example, is  
surely wrong.


The wheelchair ramp analogy, whilst not perfect, is a useful one I  
think. To refer to the example you used, I don't see that anyone would  
expect you to install a wheelchair ramp for the sake of a one-off  
private party (although if you invited your wheelchair-using friends  
they might get a bit p**sed off if you hadn't catered for them). I  
guess the equivalent of that on the internet is a personal site or  
blog which, whilst existing on the public internet, makes no attempt  
to provide content aimed at the wider public, and is simply a vanity  
site of one sort or another.


However, a site that provides a service to the wider public (be that  
in the form of information, professional debate, selling a product or  
service, or anything else like that), then the analogous 'real world'  
experience would be that of a shop or library or seminar venue not  
installing a ramp, and that of course is a very different situation  
because the service provided has an implied invitation to the public  
as a whole. To use your party analogy, the private party would be a  
nightclub open to all-comers; whether they have to pay to enjoy the  
service is immaterial, the implied invitation to the public is there.


In the vanity site situation I guess that the more personal the site  
content the harder it would be to bring discrimination case (though I / 
suppose/ that someone could argue -- just -- that they were  
desperately interested in what you had for breakfast and that since  
the site is on the public internet they have a right to be able to  
access it); with the second situation, however, the 'service offered  
to the public' aspect means that the potential for a law suit is very  
clear.


Just my take.

--
Rick Lecoat
www.sharkattack.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Lawsuits for inaccessible websites

2008-08-21 Thread Nancy Johnson
In the US, there already has been a few lawsuits against big name
corporations,  I believe Southwest Airlines and Holiday Inn both
settled.   The current one is Target
http://www.jimthatcher.com/law-target.htm.

I feel, maybe incorrectly, that current law suits at least in the US
are brought against large big name organizations for a reason.   The
importance of Target has to do with the American with Disabilities Act
and the question whether this law has to expand to include the virtual
world has to adhere to the same accessibility standards as the brick
and mortar world.

Nancy

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 21 Aug 2008, at 17:56, Jon Warner wrote:

 If I hosted a party, of course I would do my best to accommodate
 everyone's needs but to receive a court summons several days later because i
 had not installed a wheelchair ramp, for example, is surely wrong.

 The wheelchair ramp analogy, whilst not perfect, is a useful one I think. To
 refer to the example you used, I don't see that anyone would expect you to
 install a wheelchair ramp for the sake of a one-off private party (although
 if you invited your wheelchair-using friends they might get a bit p**sed off
 if you hadn't catered for them). I guess the equivalent of that on the
 internet is a personal site or blog which, whilst existing on the public
 internet, makes no attempt to provide content aimed at the wider public, and
 is simply a vanity site of one sort or another.

 However, a site that provides a service to the wider public (be that in the
 form of information, professional debate, selling a product or service, or
 anything else like that), then the analogous 'real world' experience would
 be that of a shop or library or seminar venue not installing a ramp, and
 that of course is a very different situation because the service provided
 has an implied invitation to the public as a whole. To use your party
 analogy, the private party would be a nightclub open to all-comers; whether
 they have to pay to enjoy the service is immaterial, the implied invitation
 to the public is there.

 In the vanity site situation I guess that the more personal the site content
 the harder it would be to bring discrimination case (though I /suppose/ that
 someone could argue -- just -- that they were desperately interested in what
 you had for breakfast and that since the site is on the public internet they
 have a right to be able to access it); with the second situation, however,
 the 'service offered to the public' aspect means that the potential for a
 law suit is very clear.

 Just my take.

 --
 Rick Lecoat
 www.sharkattack.co.uk



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Lawsuits for inaccessible websites

2008-08-21 Thread Graphics Web Designing, LLC
OK speaking because I am paraplegic, a piece of plywood would do just fine
to get someone up a step, now if you are in a building that just has a small
lip, I do not use a ramp when I go to my mother's house, it's called pop a
wheelie and get your Arz in the door. Now those that jump and run for a
lawsuit is just dumb and have nothing better to do they prey upon those that
do not know. If I was someone that knew someone that did that I would tell
them that if they are such a pro then perhaps they should start a group and
inform others of how to handle parties of those that use a wheelchair and me
personally would have to say something to the idiot that ran to a lawyer
just for the lawsuit, that is just stupid and looking for trouble down the
road and a rep so I guess they do not want many friends.
Please, just because you are in a wheelchair does not mean that you are
dead!, do something with your life!
And for those of you that do not believe I am in a wheelchair I will be more
than glad to show you a pic just email me I am not one that takes no for
an answer and just let others do things for me I am one of those that do
use a wheelchair and can provide for myself and others.




Sherri 
Graphic’s  Web Designing, LLC
(941)429-5005  (941)525-3955 Cell
(941)426-8117 Fax/Phone
(877)447-8932
 

Have a great day.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webgraphicdesigning.com


Save on your next Vacation/Travel
 Check out our online travel site and save money. As independent certified
referral travel agents (RTA's), we offer the same travel vendors you already
know at prices which rival Orbitz, Expedia,  Travelocity. You're already
booking online...why not book with someone you know...us! 

  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nancy Johnson
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:59 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Lawsuits for inaccessible websites

In the US, there already has been a few lawsuits against big name
corporations,  I believe Southwest Airlines and Holiday Inn both
settled.   The current one is Target
http://www.jimthatcher.com/law-target.htm.

I feel, maybe incorrectly, that current law suits at least in the US
are brought against large big name organizations for a reason.   The
importance of Target has to do with the American with Disabilities Act
and the question whether this law has to expand to include the virtual
world has to adhere to the same accessibility standards as the brick
and mortar world.

Nancy

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
 On 21 Aug 2008, at 17:56, Jon Warner wrote:

 If I hosted a party, of course I would do my best to accommodate
 everyone's needs but to receive a court summons several days later
because i
 had not installed a wheelchair ramp, for example, is surely wrong.

 The wheelchair ramp analogy, whilst not perfect, is a useful one I think.
To
 refer to the example you used, I don't see that anyone would expect you to
 install a wheelchair ramp for the sake of a one-off private party
(although
 if you invited your wheelchair-using friends they might get a bit p**sed
off
 if you hadn't catered for them). I guess the equivalent of that on the
 internet is a personal site or blog which, whilst existing on the public
 internet, makes no attempt to provide content aimed at the wider public,
and
 is simply a vanity site of one sort or another.

 However, a site that provides a service to the wider public (be that in
the
 form of information, professional debate, selling a product or service, or
 anything else like that), then the analogous 'real world' experience would
 be that of a shop or library or seminar venue not installing a ramp, and
 that of course is a very different situation because the service provided
 has an implied invitation to the public as a whole. To use your party
 analogy, the private party would be a nightclub open to all-comers;
whether
 they have to pay to enjoy the service is immaterial, the implied
invitation
 to the public is there.

 In the vanity site situation I guess that the more personal the site
content
 the harder it would be to bring discrimination case (though I /suppose/
that
 someone could argue -- just -- that they were desperately interested in
what
 you had for breakfast and that since the site is on the public internet
they
 have a right to be able to access it); with the second situation, however,
 the 'service offered to the public' aspect means that the potential for a
 law suit is very clear.

 Just my take.

 --
 Rick Lecoat
 www.sharkattack.co.uk



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***