Website owners face prosecution

[SarG]

Ensuring web sites are easy for disabled people to use is no longer an option - it is a legal obligation.

The Royal National Institute of the Blind in Peterborough is warning that anyone running a site faces prosecution if they fail to comply with the law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3117050.stm

[Howard]

Does that apply to ANYONE with a site or just businesses?

[SarG]

I really dont know, i suppose they might just target big business atm.

[CocoPops]

Good, it's about time tbh.

Both my Parents-In-Law are blind and rely on the internet, yet some sites they really struggle with because they are soo badly laid out.

They have worked with M&S to make the Marks and Spencer website user friendly for blind and partially sighted people.

[joshwa]

"The new legislation applies anyone who runs a website - individuals or companies. "

[Bunjiweb]

what a crock of ....

So we're meant to spend god knows how much updating a site so it can cope with the blind??? I'm sorry but if someone tried to prosecute me for this i'd just laugh in their face.

No offence WHATSOEVER to blind people. but trying to take individuals / companies to court because there website isnt friendly to disabled people is simply laughable.

THE INTERNET IS A PRIVILAGE NOT A RIGHT!

Ben :|

[kaillum]

yeah.. and it also affects all Government departments as prescirved in the e-GIF!

[TiG]

AM I the only person that finds this complete and utter Bull, i run a site which shows live traffic information, it runs a live traffic map written in flash, there is no way for me to improve this site to help blind people, for one the site should be of no interest to blind people, they can't drive therefore I have no interest in making the site viewable for them as its not my target audience.

I CAN understand public services being required to this, but businesses in general should be able to target the groups of people they want, it should not be legal legislation to support this. Its completely unenforcable, there is no way I would imagine any company could get dragged across the coals with something like this.

TiG

[CocoPops]

Originally posted by Bunjiweb
what a crock of ....

So we're meant to spend god knows how much updating a site so it can cope with the blind??? I'm sorry but if someone tried to prosecute me for this i'd just laugh in their face.

No offence WHATSOEVER to blind people. but trying to take individuals / companies to court because there website isnt friendly to disabled people is simply laughable.

THE INTERNET IS A PRIVILAGE NOT A RIGHT!

Ben :|

So you're saying that stores shouldn't have lifts, only stairs and sod the wheelchair bound?

And Schools, restaurants etc should have disabled toilets, sod them if they can't use the normal ones?

The internet is NOT a priviledge it should be accessable to EVERYone, blind or not. It comes done to discrimination basically, by making a site hard to read it is discriminating against those that can't read it. Same as saying, no black people allowed.

Change your outlook bunji, it currently sucks quite frankly.

[joshwa]

Whilst I do think it is a good idea that you make your website available for as many people as possible (making sure it works with as many browsers as possible, using ALT tags etc), I think for a large number of websites, such as personal web sites just with a family photo album, there would be no point trying to sue them for not putting descriptive ALT tags on the images, because it could be argued that the site was only intended for friends and family...

I would rather see there be a warning sent, saying, "please can you make your site suitable for blind people etc" rather than said company / site being taken to court because they have a trendy design that is not suitable for blind etc.

I hope that this doesn't mean all websites have to be boring and graphically lacking...

[CocoPops]

Originally posted by www.josh.org.uk
I hope that this doesn't mean all websites have to be boring and graphically lacking...

They don't have to be Josh, that's the point.

Most "reputable" sites that have a large graphic content, ie flash, images etc often have a "low bandwidth" site so there for they already have two versions, so you just adapt the low bandwidth version to allow for tags etc.

[Bazzlad]

http://www.rhesusrock.com
Now blind friendly.
Or not.
:S
I think everything but the front page would be ok....
My aunty is blind, but she doesn't use the internet, I didn't realise blind people did.....Hey is LYCOS a guide dog????

Crazyness.

[petrefax]

the principle behind this is laudible enough when applied to sites which would be of use to ppl with disabilities, particularly govt run sites etc, but a blanket law affecting all websites, regardless of whether they'd be of any use to disabled folk is complete B/S - TiG's site being a perfect example of just how ludicrous this is.

i can't imagine this getting very far with regard to enforcement - imho, depending on the site (again, TiG's being a perfect example) this would be laughed out of court

[Bunjiweb]

Originally posted by CocoPops
So you're saying that stores shouldn't have lifts, only stairs and sod the wheelchair bound?

And Schools, restaurants etc should have disabled toilets, sod them if they can't use the normal ones?

The internet is NOT a priviledge it should be accessable to EVERYone, blind or not. It comes done to discrimination basically, by making a site hard to read it is discriminating against those that can't read it. Same as saying, no black people allowed.

Change your outlook bunji, it currently sucks quite frankly.

Um, how can you compare a website run by an individual to stores etc? I make near to f-all money on my website, Stores etc. make plenty of profit with which to make facilities for the disabled, yet just because my website is not friendly to the disabled people i could face a fine or whatever for it? It's rubbish!!!

And FFS, i said i have nothing against the disabled people, i do however have issue with the people who will try and drag money out of anything these days.... how americanised do you want this country to be?

I think you misunderstood what i meant, or i worded it badly, but either way my outlook DOES NOT suck.

Ben

[CocoPops]

I guess what I'm trying to say, is if suddenly you lost your sight, and you wanted to view all the website you view today, can you?

Probably not, I agree that they are perhaps going in heavy handed, but it's about time people took notice really.

My father-in-law is a Systems Analyst and so hence deals with a PC day in day out, I used to think it was amazing that he can deal with the same apps we use, all through a brail terminal, but now it's just "normal". If he can use a computer as well, if not better than some of the users here, then why shouldn't he use the internet?

You certainly can't turn around and say "You can't use the internet coz you're blind and we can't be bothered to even try to make our site easy to access when all it takes are a few image descritons for example on image based menu systems"

[kaillum]

Originally posted by www.josh.org.uk
I would rather see there be a warning sent, saying, "please can you make your site suitable for blind people etc" rather than said company / site being taken to court because they have a trendy design that is not suitable for blind etc.

its more than likely that a warning would be sent. you'd have to be pretty dumb to end up in court over a matter like this...

its aimed at giving sight impared people an avenue of complaint. mainly if theres a site being run by a someone that they would like to view and they cant it gives them a point of reference.

IIRC from what i've read of the e-GIF (its a pretty huge document) the idea is that if your site is W3C compliant, then it 'should' be ok..
sight impaired people need to use either a screen reader or large print browser and possibly mono coloured text...

the bbc's site is a great example of this. they have a pretty looking normal site, but you can switch to a 'low bandwidth' site that gives plain text and menu's..