DDA and web site accessibility

I work in a local authority for the libraries department and find this discussion interesting - Our Access and Social Inclusion department has been busy over the last few years making our public computers more accessible including colour coded keyboards and magnifying software and also the JAWS programme which is an audible screen reader so I am wondering whether programmes such as JAWS will stop audible websites being compulsory? And this made me think about this subject.

When you include music and sound with a website the connection speed sometimes takes a lot longer to connect to the site (Unless you have high speed broadband which not many people have). This means that customers will not use commercial websites in favour of faster loading ones. This means a company may well be on top of the DDA leagues but have no online sales.

If organisations and individuals just purchase the screen reading programmes is this classed as "Reasonable effort" rather than putting the onus on website creators? This could also help drive down the price of such software so people covered under DDA would have easy access at home as well as at work.

Hi David,

I have a few technical points to add to your info. The standard language for websites is HTML. This is a text markup language which identifies things such as headings, lists, etc and the browser, whether it is display or spoken, interprets this markup in it's presentation of the text.

One of the major problems is that there are other standards and tools that are being used to the detriment of voice browsers. For example, the really nice workplacelaw network logo with the clock at the top of this site is a mix of graphics, javascript, flash images, tables etc, that a voice browser simply wouldn't be able to interpret. The rest of the site is fairly neutral, plenty of text and standard items.

Imagine a site that only uses flash animations, graphics and other non textual tools. The content of this site could be locked up away from any voice browsers to the extent that it is impossible to read. It is often done to make the text and content hard to copy to other sites, but it can really make a site inaccessible to voice browsers.

A good starting point for further information is http://www.w3c.org/WAI/ this is the web accessibility initiative from the organisation that defines open standards for web markup etc. The have some good and simple guidelines for improving accessibility.

We received a question at Workplace Law recently regarding web site accessibility - testing a claim that all web sites would have to be audible in future. As this issue has been in the news quite a bit recently - and bearing in mind that there seem to be lots of companies out there charging for web site access audits - does anyone have any views?

For the sake of the record, I have pasted below the response I gave to the question. Anyone agree or disagree? Or has anyone got any experiences of being approached for this type of work?

--

As I mentioned, employment duties are less likely to be an issue under the DDA. Under S.4, Part II of the Act (relating to employment) it states that "it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person whom he employs ... in the opportunities which he affords him for promotion, a transfer, training or receiving any other benefit". But the remedies to employers are much greater, in that they have control over the relationship with the employee and any interface he may have with the internet/intranet e.g. they could operate a 'buddy' system to overcome reading problems.

A similar situation and approach applies under S.12, relating to contract workers.

Where the issue is at its hottest is where disabled members of the public might want to access external web sites, which is covered under Part III of the Act relating to "goods, facilities and services". I am sure you are aware of the central problem here, which relates to the use of the word "reasonable" when considering what adjustments might need to be made by companies to make e.g. their services accessible to all.

Under S.19.3 (c)the Act specifically includes "access to and use of information services"; and under S.19.3 (f) it specifically includes "facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment" - both of which might be provided by a web site.

However, the big question about what is - and is not - reasonable cannot be answered until the first cases have come through the courts following the 1 October 2004 implementation deadline of Part III of the DDA. I would have thought personally that, because service providers can take time, cost and inconvenience into account when considering what is reasonable, most would feel confident in defending a claim to justify the fact that they had not made their web site more user-friendly to disabled people. The argument that all the information on the web site could be given over the phone could support a defence that the disabled person has not been discriminated against in the opportunities etc.

For example, if you sell cheap paint on your web site, but I can't see it because I have a visual impairment, as long as the same price offer is available over the phone, you have clearly not discriminated against me in opportunity. When taking what is reasonable into account, one would presumably want to look at the usage stats for the web site, and the size of the company, to establish whether a (significant?) investment in IT programming resource could properly justified.

Clearly, no one can rightfully claim that "your web site must be available in a format you can listen to": a) because the argument is much more complex than that; and b) because it will be for the courts to decide in any case.

David Sharp, Managing Director
Workplace Law Group