Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions wrote:
The building codes analogy is one I often use myself, but as pointed out
already, it does fall flat when asked for the governing bodies that are
policing the web.
When faced with a client/agency/designer that doesn't (want to/need to)
understand the 'technical' aspects (bandwidth, ease of maintenance,
accessibility, cross UA compatibility, 'standards' compliance, etc) then a
certain amount of licence has to be applied to the explanation and reasoning
for adopting standards. If that involves making a comparison to a standard
in their field of business then so be it.
But if that comparison is inaccurate or outright misleading ("your site
will fall foul of regulations by some mythical central authority") you
may be hurting your case more than helping it. What if they check with
other people ("so this other guy says the page will be against the law")
and are told that there is no indication of this happening? You may as
well go completely overboard and tell them that they're likely to get
sued
http://accessify.com/2005/12/legal-advice-from-automated-testing.php ...
but I'm not sure if getting a contract because of FUD is the right way
to go.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
