Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <44DA12BD.8090401@commandprompt.com>
References: <02dc01c6bbd2$5e13eb20$6a01a8c0@valehousing.co.uk>
	<44DA12BD.8090401@commandprompt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <7350D64D-83E9-40AF-8BA9-A3FD10416A8A@ehpg.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@ehpg.net>
Subject: Re: captcha
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:56:41 -0700
To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org

I find it hard to believe it's against the law for an individual or =20
non-commercial/non-business group to make an inaccessible website.  =20
Perhaps for businesses or government agencies, but if the UK has said =20=

that individual sites run by individuals have to be fully accessible, =20=

well, that's just a bit wonky.

Not that I'm against accessibility... I just find the idea of the =20
legality of what one does on ones own website with regard to =20
accessibility or inaccessibility to be a bit off.

If this is specifically about the DDA, then according to

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/=20
public_legalcase.hcsp#P39_3186

I don't believe we have a problem.

"Websites may be covered under the employment provisions, as they may =20=

be a means of advertising jobs; or there may be an intranet which =20
staff need to use. Websites will most commonly be covered when they =20
constitute the provision of a service, or they are related to =20
education."

and the example

=93What services are affected by the Act? An airline company provides a =20=

flight reservation and booking service to the public on its website. =20
This is a provision of a service and is subject to the act.=94

So it seems to apply to service oriented businesses or employment =20
related websites.  Even at that it seems to be big brotherish to =20
me.   What it also appears to come down to is it someone is disabled =20
and feels discriminated against by the website, then they have the =20
right to sue the owner of the site.

Gavin

On Aug 9, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>> The wwwmaster backup box is in .uk, and yes, it
> >would be subject to UK law (which iirc came from an EU directive =20
> so similar laws most likely  are/will be enacted elsewhere in Europe).