-1

I just found out that there's some countries(UK, CANADA and some more) that actually have a LAW about the web-site accessibility. I was shocked, because one thing when there's some RECOMMENDATIONS and another thing is a LAW, witch means anyone can sue you for not being 'standard'.

I'm interesting in your professional opinion about why is it bad to use LAW based on WCAG 2.0 recommendations to make web-site accessible to disabled people. If you may, please provide a good examples with proper comments. There's not so many people who're fluent in WCAG 2.0 standards.

I found at wikipedia criticism about wcag here what it says:

Criticism of WAI guidelines

There has been criticism of the W3C process, claiming that it does not sufficiently put the user at the heart of the process.[2] There was a formal objection to WCAG's original claim that WCAG 2.0 will address requirements for people with learning disabilities and cognitive limitations headed by Lisa Seeman and signed by 40 organisations and people.[3] In articles such as "WCAG 2.0: The new W3C guidelines evaluated",[4] "To Hell with WCAG 2.0"[5] and "Testability Costs Too Much",[6] the WAI has been criticised for allowing WCAG 1.0 to get increasingly out of step with today's technologies and techniques for creating and consuming web content, for the slow pace of development of WCAG 2.0, for making the new guidelines difficult to navigate and understand, and other argued failings.

*I may be wrong, but I think CODE should not be restricted by any law at all. It's a godamn CODE ffs

I think governments should encourage web-site owners(businesses!) to make they sites accessible, but not restrict them to some wcag for example.

Thanks!

jacluves
  • 7
  • 1
  • Could you please give pointers (e.g., links) to the laws you refer to? – unor Jan 07 '16 at 12:23
  • At this moment Norway and Australia are the only ones that apply their laws to commercial sites based on WCAG 2.0, all the other countries going to make this probably in the near future. The Australian law based on Disability Discrimination Act and it can be found on the government site here: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/world-wide-web-access-disability-discrimination-act-advisory-notes-ver-40-2010 – jacluves Jan 07 '16 at 13:51
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not a programming question, but rather is soliciting opinions about legal matters. – steveax Jan 07 '16 at 20:07

2 Answers2

1

I think there is a basic misunderstanding about how the law aspect works, it isn't based on WCAG.

In the UK, most of the EU, Canada and Australia there is no mention of WCAG2 or any particular standard for website accessibility in the law itself.

The law in the UK and in other countries like Australia says (and consider this an extreme paraphrase) that any product or service you provide should not discriminate against people with disabilities.

Whether you rely on a website to be accessible is up to you, you just have to provide your product/service in an accessible way somehow, you could do it on the phone and in a physical place.

NB: Most countries have "advisory notes" that do talk about WCAG, but see those as a means of making things accessible, not the core legal requirment.

Given that the website is generally the easiest way to provide something accessibly, WCAG2 is the most recognised set of guidelines and if you use that and make a "reasonable effort", any legal complaints will be easier to deal with.

Taking the book example (from the comments elsewhere), a paper book may not be accessible to someone who is blind, but the publisher is obliged to either make the digital copy available as an ebook (which can be read out by a computer or other device) or make the content available to services that create audio versions. They don't loose out on sales, and it is not a hardship to provide an accessible version.

There are lots of ways to make products and services available and thanks to the web being created as accessible-by-default, it is a very good channel for that.

Also, WCAG does not say "you have to do it this way or you are not standard", it says things like "All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose". It doesn't define the code you use (although there are obvious ways to acheive that), the guidelines are written so there there a multiple ways of acheiving the aim.

Some people complain about that and think it should be clearer and easier to implement!

Bottom line: If you are paid to make a website, making it accessible is part of a professional job.

AlastairC
  • 3,277
  • 21
  • 15
  • It is based on WCAG 2.0, moreover it requires the AA standards. You're right about UK law, I based on this material about UK(https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-centred-design/accessibility), it says about WCAG 2.0 but only for gov. sites. Canada's law based on WCAG 2.0, but apply only for gov. sites(http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=23601), Australian law based on WCAG 2.0 too and apply for ALL sites(http://www.humanrights.gov.au/world-wide-web-access-disability-discrimination-act-advisory-notes-ver-40-2010#transition). Norway got almost the same rule as Australia. – jacluves Jan 07 '16 at 20:24
  • I'm not really fluent about books and how the publishing process goes, so not gonna discuss it, you're probably right, but this was just an example I hope it's clear. The WCAG 2.0 is a lots of info and checking. This requires more time and as a result - more money for a client(just an example). Now, if a client is a big awesome company, whatever! Let them do it ffs, but if the owner is single mother with three kids... see my point? Remember the era(10y ago) when all sites was adapted specifically for IE? And how about WCAG 1.0 and NO JS? Even you at your site not bugging with cross-browsing – jacluves Jan 07 '16 at 20:24
  • You are confusing advisory notes with the law, they are not the same thing. WCAG 1 and no-JS is old info, why bring that up? If you are a mom and pop then use something like Wordpress or Squarespace and it then their responsibility. If you make your own, learn, it is built into HTML and related tech. – AlastairC Jan 07 '16 at 22:29
0

Accessibility is not just "code", accessibility is about discrimination.

And fortunately, there are laws to sue people, not for not being standard, but for removing access to people with disabilities.

Adam
  • 17,838
  • 32
  • 54
  • Adam, you're probably already have hardened belief about the accessibility and discrimination, but please, give a thought for a moment. It's not about discrimination! As a good example, take books. They are not adaptable for disabled people and the companies that want make them accessible do it by they own. There's no law about making book publisher companies for make it accessible, because otherwise it will be too costly. If there should be a law about web-sites accessibility, it should remain as RECOMMENDATION for everyone, but government/educational sites. – jacluves Jan 07 '16 at 09:42
  • I hope that someday you will be old, and understand what accessibility means. And understand that it's not because you have low vision, or motor impairment, that you no longer have the right to access a website. And for information, blind people can't read book, but they can use internet. – Adam Jan 07 '16 at 10:25
  • This will probably be my last comment to you, because I don't want to make it deadlock, personal-matter related subject. For your record, blind people do may read. Not normal text, no. But they may read. Same for the internet: they may not see it the way normal people do, but they may see it in other manner. The 'use' form will be correct if you will use it for books as well, because books can be 'used' by blind people(and other disabled people too!), but they needed to be adapted. For Braille, for example. Or audio book(this not reading,but this is adaptable one). But again,give it a thought! – jacluves Jan 07 '16 at 10:52
  • You mix the support with the content. A book is a book. A story can be adapted, it can be written, it can be speaked, it can be sung. But it's still something conceptual : a story. A website is not a story, a website is a service. The support is your computer, mine, or a screen reader, a braille display. When you buy a book, you have the right to read the book. When you visit a website, you have the right to read the website with your own material. – Adam Jan 07 '16 at 11:08