Legal Obligations
Businesses that have an online presence should provide accessibility to disabled users. Not only are there ethical and commercial justifications for implementing the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, there are also legal reasons. If a business's website does not meet the Accessibility Guidelines, then the website owner could be sued for discrimination.
To date, at least two actions against websites have been initiated by the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) in the United Kingdom, and both settled without the case being heard by a court. The RNIB opted not to name the two companies that faced settlements.
Additionally, there has been one case of electronic accessibility that resulted in an employment tribunal finding discrimination. The case, against the Project Management Institute (PMI), was decided in October 2006, and the company was ordered to pay compensation of £3,000.
The landmark 2010/2012 Jodhan decision has caused the Canadian Federal government to require all online web pages, documents and videos available externally and internally to meet the accessibility requirements of WCAG 2.0.
The Australian Government has also mandated that all Australian Government websites meet the WCAG accessibility requirements.
It is anticipated that higher-profile test cases will be launched against non-compliant websites in the near future. Since the law requires websites to take "reasonable steps" to make websites accessible to users, it is anticipated that large companies will struggle to justify any failures to make their websites accessible, while small businesses and charities may have a better defense, if they can show that they do not have the resources necessary for the development work.
Read more about this topic: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Famous quotes containing the words legal and/or obligations:
“I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.”
—Alexander Solzhenitsyn (b. 1918)
“The parent who loves his child dearly but asks for nothing in return might qualify as a saint, but he will not qualify as a parent. For a child who can claim love without meeting any of the obligations of love will be a self-centered child and many such children have grown up in our time to become petulant lovers and sullen marriage partners because the promise of unconditional love has not been fulfilled.”
—Selma H. Fraiberg (20th century)