Paul Cooper wrote:
kaeli wrote:
Note that this violates the guidelines for accessibility
for the disabled.
You might like to note that according to an official from the
UK eGovernment initiative (AFAIR run by the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister), failing to comply with W3C WAI rules
is illegal in the UK.
<snip>
WAI "rules" take the form of guidelines and some of those guidelines are
extremely subjective. e.g.:-
<quote cite="Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0">
Checkpoints:
14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for
a site's content. [Priority 1]
</quote>
Simplicity and appropriateness would be difficult to measure. Some
automated measure of simplicity might be available:-
<quote cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#comprehension" >
To help determine whether your document is easy to read, consider using
the Gunning-Fog reading measure (described in [SPOOL] with examples and
the algorithm online at [TECHHEAD]). This algorithm generally produces a
lower score when content is easier to read. As example results, the
Bible, Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and TV Guide all have Fog indexes of
about 6. Time, Newsweek, and the Wall St. Journal an average Fog index
of about 11.
</snip>
- but the fact that these figures have grouped the Bible, Shakespeare,
and TV Guide highlights the problem of appropriateness (TV Guide in the
style of Shakespeare; maybe simple, but far from appropriate).
If the WAI cannot lay down hard and fast rules (and they are far too
realistic to believe that they can effectively do that in many cases)
then the UK government cannot require that those "rules" be followed as
such.
My interpretation of the (UK) DDA, especially; PART III - DISCRIMINATION
IN OTHER AREAS: 19(3)(c) "access to and use of information services"
(19(3). 'examples of services to which ... apply'), is that the act is
intended to apply to web sites (commercial and otherwise - 19(2)(c) "it
is irrelevant whether a service is provided on payment or without
payment"). And following WCAG 1.0 (with a reasonable interpretation of
the more ambiguous/subjective parts) should satisfy the requirements of
the act.
Richard.
