|
A combination of UK law, international guidelines and other international
legal or tribunal precedents may finally be combining to help ensure the
internet is made accessible for all.
Part three of the UK Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 came into
force in October 1999, imposing a series of duties on service providers
including:
- Not to refuse to provide, or deliberately not provide a service to
a disabled person which he provides, or is prepared to provide to members
of the public [section 19(1)(a)]
- Not to provide a lower standard or manner of service to a disabled
person [section 19(1)(c)]
- To make 'reasonable adjustments' in circumstances in which the effect
of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for
the disabled person to make use of any such service [section 19(1)(b)]
Although operators of web sites are not specifically included within
the definition of a 'service provider', a term left deliberately vague,
it is likely they are liable. Indeed, it seems impossible to reasonably
differentiate between the service provided by a conventional retailer
and one who is based online.
As 'information services' are specifically included in section 19(3)(c),
it is also arguable that all web sites are liable due to the internet
being just that - an extremely large and varied information service. Whether
rail timetables, Inland Revenue advice or a promotional site for the latest
ad campaign, these are all sources of information.
The first duty imposed by the Act - "not to refuse to provide, or
deliberately not provide a service" - could arguably apply where
a service provider has deliberately chosen not to integrate accessibility
into his web site.
This might include where a Flash movie is used without an option to skip
it, thus preventing people using screen readers to progress any further.
Although some might argue this section is of limited application because
knowledge is required on the part of the service provider, there is a
duty to make reasonable inquiries under the code of practice that accompanies
the Act.
The second duty - that of "standard of service" - prohibits
service providers from providing a lower standard of service to a disabled
person, compared to that offered to an able-bodied person.
It is a straightforward argument that high street retailers offering
innaccessible online shopping services are in breach of this rule.
The third, and perhaps most interesting of the relevant duties, is that
of "reasonable adjustments".
The issue of whether converting an inaccessible web site to an accessible
web site was a reasonable adjustment to make has already been considered
under similar legislation in Australia.
In the case of Maguire versus Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic
Games, the Australian Human Rights Commission (www.hreoc.gov.au)
found in favour of the complainant, Bruce Maguire, that the committee
had breached its duties as a service provider by providing an inaccessible
web site.
The commission rejected SOCOG's claims that introducing accessibility
would be an unreasonable burden in terms of cost and manpower, instead
favouring the complainant's expert witnesses, who said compliance costs
would be marginal.
The commission also made reference to the World Wide Web Consortium's
accessibility guidelines (www.w3c.org/wai),
the first time these have been mentioned in a court of law, as a recognised
set of guidelines that should be followed.
Although Australian cases are not regarded as authority in by the courts
in the UK, there is no doubt that they can be considered persuasive in
coming to decisions considering similar cases.
This is especially so where the foreign legislation is similar to that
in the UK (as is the case here with disability legislation) and when dealing
with issues raised by new technology.
It is therefore reasonable to expect that if and when an action is brought
against a service provider in the UK that the courts will follow the lead
set in SOCOG and expect service providers to comply with the W3C guidelines
by providing an accessible site.
Service providers would therefore be well advised to follow the advice
of the DDA code of practice, which obliges them to continually review
their duties and take into account "technological developments [which]
may provide new or better solutions to the problems of inaccessible services"
[paragraph 4.9]. This obligation is likely to be read as saying that:
even if a web site was designed before the introduction of the WAI guidelines,
they should still be adhered to as they are a new 'standard'.
The accessibility cause is likely to be given fresh impetus by a new
draft of the code of practice, to accompany the final part of the DDA
which comes into force in 2004.
This is currently before Parliament and is expected to contain more explicit
references to web accessibility when it is published in final form in
February. Not only will this act as a warning to service providers, but
it is also likely to lead to increased awareness of rights amongst the
disabled community. Combined, these factors should ensure accessibility
will finally be given the recognition it deserves.
Posted: 6 Feb, 2002
|
![[e-access bulletin logo]](/tzimages/images/News/eaxs.gif)
