Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:48:41 -0500 (EST) From: David Scheidt <rufus@brain.mics.net> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NatWest? no thanks Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.20.0111021731520.7443-100000@brain.mics.net> In-Reply-To: <15331.7459.503822.857563@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > The Fifth Circuit court ducked the issue, the District Court ruling is > the one I was referring to. I'd love a solid precedent saying that > commercial web sites were covered by the ADA. The District Court ruling doesn't count for much, since the the appeals case. I too would like very much to see a solid precedent, one way or the other (hopefully that web sites are public accomadations, since they are). > > As for the costs - I gave up trying to tell people that five years > ago, because nobody cared. As far as I can tell, they still don't. The > question of expensive retrofits was brought up in the congressional > hearings on the matter, and the ADA doesn't require them. It's going > to take something major to make most web designers notice. Since AOL > agreeing to redesign their software for accessability to end the > lawsuit with The National Federation for the Blind wasn't major > enough, I have no idea what would be. While the ADA doesn't require major retrofits to bring something into compliance, it does require that new construction and major renovations be compliant, and has penalities for those that don't. Since all web sites postdate the ADA, retrofitting might be required. Of course, many companies can't look 6 months into the future, so it's no suprise this doesn't worry them. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.4.20.0111021731520.7443-100000>