Dennis, thanks for that link, an interesting opinion, and one that flies in the face of several court cases throughout the US (in particular Florida a few years ago)
> The New York State Attorney General offered a legal opinion > that all web site originating within that state are subject > to Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act I read that and I thought "huh? That can't be right". And reading the page on the link provided, it turns out that statement isn't quite right. The NY State AG said that "the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that private web sites be accessible to blind and visually impaired Internet users." Two things of note here: First, it is the ADA that is cited, NOT Section 508 of the US Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 is NOT applicable as the VRA applies soleley to US Federal agencies (and some organisations funded primarely with federal money, such as some universities), it always has, and always will. This is an important distinction, because the ADA does not mention anywhere in its text that it covers access to the internet (It was written pre-1990 and signed on July 26, 1992). Therefore, to state that the ADA applies also to companies doing business over the internet is a point that can be argued. In fact, while it seems logical that it *should* apply, that very argument has been used several times to lose court cases and make bad precedents (I don't have time to dig my archives for references, but if anyone's interested, I'll be pleased to do so). Since the ADA doesn't not mention the internet, it also does not provide compliance guidelines for websites. While it is logical that either WCAG or 508 would be followed, sadly, that's not how the law functions. So we have a law that doesn't technically apply, despite the opinion of one AG, and even if it did apply, there is no compliance schedule to guide people (unlike for physical structures, such as ramps (prescribed gradient of 1:12, or door width of clear opening width of 32", etc). In my opinion, this is a positive statement by an AG, but one that will not accomplish a whole lot. Big splash in a small pond :( Secondly, the AG makes reference to people who are blind and visually impaired using the internet. Which is good. But what about all the *other* disabilities? What about folks with mobility impairments? Those with seizure disorders? Cognitive disabilities? Etc... People with disabilities like that also have accessibility needs. The problem with that statement is that it could be used *against* accessibility. The way "precedent" works, lawyers and courts look for things that have been said before and use it to build up their cases (or decisions in the case of a court). It is easy to see how an attorney defending a client with a non-accessible website could say something like "Yes, but the NY State AG said that the ADA applied to blind user, without mentioning any other disabilities, therefore, the AG's statement cannot be used to support the fact that the ADA applies to all accessibility aspects on the internet". The good thing is, such a statement can't really be used as a legal precedent, but it will certainly influence thinking. Finally, that page speaks about "settlements". If you do a bit of research on the web, you'll notice that there are next to NO decisions in court cases against businesses with non accessible court cases. The few that do have decisions are actually *against* accessibility. In fact, I know of only one case that was successfully won by the plaintiff, and this was in Australia not in the US, against the Olympic Committee's website. I would imagine that there *are* more successful cases out there, just haven't heard of them. This does NOT mean that there aren't a lot of companies that are sued, just that the majority will settle out of court. This is good, at least there may be some improvement out of it, but settlements can't be used as legal precendents, which means that actual court cases still have nothing to support the fact that the ADA applies to the internet (the situation may be different in other countries, of course, as the ADA doesn't apply outside the US [yes, I've had people tell me it applied worldwide!!!]) Please note, I'm not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be one :) I am, however, a person with a disability who has been doing a lot of grassroot advocacy and work with/around the ADA, and web accessibility, for over a decade now. Cheers, I hope my long mail hasn't bored you to tears Nic ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************