UK website legal requirements article

  • trenton
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • trenton
  • Posts: 5
  • Loc: London

Post 3+ Months Ago

I’ve written and researched an article about the legal requirements for websites under the Disability Discrimination Act. Hopefully it might clear up some of the confusion surrounding the DDA, although until a case goes to court and a precedence is set it will always be a 'grey area'.

Check it out: UK website legal requirements

You might also find this article, 10 basic tests to check your website for accessibility of interest.
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • ATNO/TW
  • Super Moderator
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 23456
  • Loc: Woodbridge VA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hey! Thanks trenton. I have that bookmarked for future study.
  • Cold Canuck
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 400
  • Loc: Michigan, U.S. of eh

Post 3+ Months Ago

Interesting, when surfing to this web site:
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-frien ... lity.shtml

The alt text does not display on mouseover when using any of the gecko-driven browsers (firefox 0.8, mozilla 1.4, NN7.1).
I wonder if the DDA requires all disabled people use the most up to date, W3C-compliant web browser, if not...does that not suggest liability...from either the browser side of things, or the web site that codes to favor one browser only?

Just curious.

Cheers...


C.C.
  • trenton
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • trenton
  • Posts: 5
  • Loc: London

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hi C.C.

The ALT doesn't appear on any decorative images. This could be for one of two reasns:

1. The image is a background image called up through stylesheets
2. The image has been assigned alt=""

As for what the DDA requires disabled people to do.. hmmm... that's interesting, I'd never thought about that. My guess would be that they would be expected to get a recent browser (after all, they're all free). Actually, that's not so relevant, as an accessible page will work on any browser in theory.
  • Cold Canuck
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 400
  • Loc: Michigan, U.S. of eh

Post 3+ Months Ago

As far as my testing went...none of the site's image's alt text was displaying.

And, as was pointed out some where amongst that site, there was mention of the handicapped being more likely to be unemployed/unemployable, would that not also suggest that the chances of those in most need of such accessibility might also be using a less than speedy machine? One less able to run an up to date browser in a stable manner?

I'm not attempting to be argumentative, I'm honestly curious.


C.C.
  • trenton
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • trenton
  • Posts: 5
  • Loc: London

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hi C.C.

All informational images in there do have alternative text - there just aren't very many! Try mousing over the logo, for example.

But... on to your main point. I'm not 100% sure what you mean. I guess your question depends on what kind of disability the user has. If it's a blind person he'll be using a screen reader to browse the web.

As for fully sighted people, well, they'll suffer from the same cross-browser / old version problems that we do.

Does that address what you're saying? If not let me know...
  • Cold Canuck
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 400
  • Loc: Michigan, U.S. of eh

Post 3+ Months Ago

Please copy and paste the URL as it links to a free host that doesn't permit hotlinking:
http://www.freewebs.com/coldcanuck/web_access.gif

As to the other point, I guess what i'm asking is, if these gecko-based browsers are unable to display the alt text, how likely would that screen reader have the same or similar issues with alt text, or do they simply read the displayed text and no alt text descriptions?


C.C.
  • trenton
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • trenton
  • Posts: 5
  • Loc: London

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hi C.C.

Basically screen readers sift through the HTML code - they don't look at the screen. They announce when they get to images and they read out the ALT text for the image. Try it for yourself with the IBM homepage reader, which you can download for a free 30-day trial at www-3.ibm.com/able/hpr.html.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
2.2 (p7): The Act makes it unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a disabled person by refusing to provide any service which it provides to members of the public.


But, doesn't the webmaster/admin reserve the right to refuse access to anybody at any time - it's impossible to tell whether some random user on your website is disabled or not, so how can they prove that was the reason for which they were banned/removed from a website?
  • Cold Canuck
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 400
  • Loc: Michigan, U.S. of eh

Post 3+ Months Ago

I think the DDA act is intended to enforce the standards that make it "possible" for ALL web surfers to access/read your website, unless and untill they prove to be a threat/PITA/general annoyance.
You can't ban or prevent someone from viewing a "publically viewable" web site on the sole issue of them being disabled...or so they are requiring.

C.C.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Right, not on the sole issue of being disabled, but as a privately owned & operated system, I could ban any user from my site for absolutely no reason whatsoever (not that I necessarily would, heh. Just that I could).
  • Cold Canuck
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 400
  • Loc: Michigan, U.S. of eh

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
Right, not on the sole issue of being disabled, but as a privately owned & operated system, I could ban any user from my site for absolutely no reason whatsoever (not that I necessarily would, heh. Just that I could).

But, unless I missed the point of the initial post, one of the DDA's requirements is to "...ensure that websites are accessible to disabled users....", it is less about interfering with a webmaster's rights to ban as it is to "....deal(s) with the duties placed by Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on those providing goods, facilities or services to the public...."

I can only assume that they intend to force those selling goods, facilities or services to ENSURE that their web site can be accurately read by the current accessibility tools available to those with certain disabilities.

Unless I'm mistaken, that is.



Cheers...


C.C.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

That may be, but they could be a little more clear on points like this for non-fluent legal speakers ;)
  • Cold Canuck
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 400
  • Loc: Michigan, U.S. of eh

Post 3+ Months Ago

The issue as a whole seems more than a little cloudy, especially since those laws can't be enforced on web sites outside the UK.


Us slack-jawed types will just have to keep up, eh :)


C.C.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

lol...

But, what about UK based companies that host in the US or other countries? Can that still be enforced?

Or what about countries based outside the UK that have sites intended for viewing in the UK hosted either on UK or US servers?

Obviously, I don't expect you to have these answers, but they're good questions that I'd like to hear an answer to :)
  • Cold Canuck
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 400
  • Loc: Michigan, U.S. of eh

Post 3+ Months Ago

I would ass-u-me that the host provider would be required and want to follow the laws, but there's no way that a UK-based org or court can inflict it's laws on a US-based host provider.
So I'm guessing that a UK company with a site hosted in the US would be either immune or might possibly face some pressure to have their site conform to UK laws.
I'm not sure since there's so much murky water ahead for such laws, I believe.


Cheers...


C.C.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

I would think a UK based company could be prosecuted, even if their site can't legally be changed...

That is. Court tells UK business to modify their US hosted site...

1. UK Business complies, all is well.
2. UK Business doesn't comply, court prosecutes further.

But the court wouldn't be able to order the US based hosting company to override the UK business and modify their site's contents.

If it were a UK based hosting company and #2 happened, then I would assume the court could also order the hosting company to modify/remove the offending material.

But a US based company, on a US hosting company, running a .co.uk or UK targetted site would be pretty much untouchable I would imagine - although, the court could theoretically order Nominet (basically the .co.uk's answer to ICANN) to nuke the domain name.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1215
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

is this what linux veiwers really see when they surf?
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1215
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

hmm that is interesing, a web page that is designed to allow IE users to see what Linux users see, istn'' visible to the linux users...

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 19 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
cron
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.