|
Let me start off by saying that I am NOT a qualified legal professional
even though I have studied Business and Contract Law. This article simply
expresses my own thoughts on the current legal situation regarding Web
accessibility.
You should ALWAYS seek professional legal advice if you are concerned about
the potential consequences of Disability Legislation.
Disability legislation aims to ensure that the disabled are not
discriminated against in employment and in the provision of goods and services.
The Web accessibility argument seems to revolve around whether a Web site can
be
classed
as a good or service.
In the UK the Disability Rights Commission (DRC),
an independent body established by Act of Parliament to eliminate discrimination
against disabled
people and promote equality of opportunity, has clearly established that a
web site should be classed as a service. On 26 February 2002, the DRC published
a new, revised Code
of Practice on
the rights of access to goods, facilities, services and premises for disabled
people. This statutory Code, agreed by Parliament, provides detailed advice
on the
way the law should work. It also provides practical examples and tips.
The May 2002 Guidelines
for UK Government Web sites refers to the Code of Practice
four times. With regard to providing services Paragraph 2.14 of the Code lists
numerous services which are covered. In paragraph 2.17 a Web related example
is given,
clearly establishing that Web sites are classed as a service and therefore
covered under the UK Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).
‘An airline company provides a flight reservation and booking
service to the public on its Web site. This is a provision of a service and
is subject to
the Act.’
In the UK there have been no Web accessibility cases so far although the Disability
Rights Commission does list numerous other disability related cases.
Elsewhere there have been very few Web accessibility legal cases. A
very recent case involving Southwest
Airlines was successfully
defended (presumably they would have lost
in the UK), whilst AOL,
Barnes & Noble,
and Claire’s Stores have settled potential cases out of
court without admitting liability. There has also been one inconclusive
case, namely 'Hooks
v OKBridge'.
The University
of Kentucky has a list of University related disability
legal cases, many of which have ended with the Universities agreeing to
put things right – ‘voluntary resolution’.
There has however been one key legal case which was brought under the Commonwealth
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, namely Bruce
Lindsay Maguire v Sydney Organising
Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG). This case is not legally binding
on UK or American courts but it may be regarded as persuasive.
Bruce Maguire was born blind and uses a refreshable Braille display. He complained
that the Sydney Olympic Games Web site was not accessible to him as a blind
person. In particular, alternative text was not provided on all of the site
images and imagemaps. Furthermore Maguire could not access the Index of Sports
or the Results Tables.
The Human Rights & Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) delivered a
landmark ruling on 24th August 2000 when they found that SOCOG were in breach
of Australia's
Disability Discrimination Act. SOCOG ignored the ruling and were fined A$20,000.
The HREOC dismissed defence arguments presented by SOCOG and IBM (who built
the site). The defendants argued that it would be excessively expensive to
retrofit the site to remove accessibility barriers and overestimated retrofit
costs to be in the region of A$2.2 million. This defence was rejected by the
HREOC.
SOCOG did not actively cooperate with the HREOC. The defendants withheld
site information from Maguire arguing that it was 'commercially sensitive’ although
this argument was rejected by the HREOC. Moreover, the defendants did not return
telephone calls or reply to correspondence. They also refused to provide a
list of witnesses as directed by the HREOC.
In my opinion the scarcity of Web accessibility legal cases is simply the
'calm before the storm'. We live in an increasingly litigious society
and it is only
a matter
of time before all Web sites are covered by disability legislation. I believe
that Web developers should take advantage of this period of grace and make
their sites accessible. I think it is
highly unlikely that a Web developer who has actively tried to create an accessible
site would find himself / herself in court.
Remember, if two massive organisations like SOCOG and IBM can fall foul
of the law then so can we all. |
