|
|
Posted by Chris Morris on 05/17/05 18:58
"Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> writes:
> Chris Morris wrote:
> > > You haven't a clue what a web based application is. It's not a web
> > > site. It has nothing to do with accessibility, javascript, pop up
> > > windows, using flash or any other personal preference you might have.
>
> > Really? Certainly in the UK, legislation would require a web based
> > application to be accessible in a large number of cases. As I
> > understand it US and European legislation is similar.
>
> I believe you are mistaken. A web based application does not have the
> same accesibility restrictions as a website. Read the regs again and
> you will see.
The audience is much smaller, yes. That doesn't absolve people of the
responsibility to cater for people with disabilities within that
audience.
I'm only really familiar with UK legislation (and I'm a web developer,
not a lawyer) but I can't think of any part of the UK legislation that
would give the exception you describe. If I've missed something please
tell me what.
> Web applications are not generally open to the public,
Irrelevant, at least in the UK. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995
protects:
(Part II) Employees
(Part III) People to whom you provide a service
(Part IV) Applicants to educational establishments and students
Part III does not require you to provide the service to everyone for
it to be a service you provide. A bank could not use as its defence
that disabled people could bank with someone else, for example.
Likewise Part II covers one of the most common uses of web
applications.
> and you are given a set of requirements to run them. For Fidelity
> investments asset management web application (and most banks for
> that matter) require javascript to be turned on. Webex, Live
> meeting, and Centra all have browser restrictions and you also need
> to downlaod specialized plugins and activeX Hardly what you would
> call accesibility.
Indeed not.
One of the reasons I don't bank online is because all the banking
sites I've seen *require* javascript, often Internet Explorer,
etc. for their online banking interfaces, despite none of the key
functionality (seeing how much money my account has, transferring
money between accounts, log in, statements) requiring [1] Javascript
to implement. I therefore - probably unfairly - trust their security
measures to have been installed and coded competently about as much as
I can see evidence of competence in the front-end design.
[1] I can see how careful use of Javascript, etc. could make doing
some of this faster, more efficient, less error-prone, whatever. I
have no problem with Javascript being used to do that. That's not the
same thing.
> Yet they all enjoy a huge following even in the UK. (with no lawsuits)
No lawsuits *yet* - though there have been several threatened that
were settled out of court. Anyone who could show that they were - as a
result of their disability - substantially disadvantaged in the
provision of service (or denied service) by the requirements of a web
application would be entitled to be provided with a "reasonable
alternative".
The reasonable alternative needn't be web-based, but a court might
decide that it should be to avoid 'substantial' disadvantage (so
requiring someone to travel several miles to the local branch of the
bank to do something someone without that disability could do over the
internet might be regarded as substantial disadvantage).
--
Chris
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|