ࡱ> oqnY (bjbjWW *==(]rrrrrrr 4RRRRRRRR  K  $rRRRRRrrRRRR(rRrR >rrrrR 6r rr R6`?nRz| A version of this article was first published in Computers and Law, December 2000/January 2001, Volume 12, Issue 5, 16 - 20 Web site design and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 You know, the internet is a wonderful thing for the disabled. You should be proud of your achievement in making the life of the disabled so much better. Rabbi Lionel Blue, OBE at the Annual Dinner of The British Computer Society held on 12 November, 2001 [This is Stephen Masons recollection of the actual words used by Rabbi Lionel Blue] The internet has been hailed by many with a technical background as a truly ground-breaking achievement. In addition, some commentators have remarked that human beings will alter the way they live as a direct result of the new technology. Such extravagant claims have been made about every form of new technology, from the invention of the telegraph, the coming of the railways and the advent of the areoplane. Whilst it is true that the introduction of new technology does affect the way we live to a certain extent, it rarely lives up to the wilder claims made for it by its more enthusiastic devotees. The web makes a difference to the life of an able bodied person insofar as they choose to use the facilities or not. An able bodied person can use the web to correspond, seek information and, if they wish, buy and sell goods and services. For a disabled person however, the internet can make a significant difference to their life. To this end, the aim of the government to enable as many people as possible to use the internet is to be welcomed. In some instances, the internet enables many people with differing degrees of disability to enrich their lives to a degree that no amount of extra home help could possibly achieve. For instance, software enables blind and partially sighted people to listen to what is written on a web site. People with poor sight can change the size of the font on a page (just as any able bodied person can). If you are colour blind, you can, to a certain extent, alter the colour scheme on a web site. If you are blind, you no longer have to telephone the store to book an appointment to go shopping. Instead of taking a day out to do the weekly shop, you can sit down in front of a screen and order goods online and have them delivered at some stage in the future. Gone can be the days where shopping for disabled people is an excruciating experience where, for instance, the supermarket provides a member of staff who is a vegetarian to pick goods for a meat eater. For the first time, many blind people can take advantage of the up-to-the-minute news and sports results that are now available on-line. In addition, the inclusion of railway and bus timetables in web sites enable blind and partially sighted people to be more confident when they travel, and to make ticket reservations independently and easily. The problem with web site design However, many web sites that operate on the internet have not been designed with the disabled user in mind. There are a range of problems that cause users with a disability to move away from popular web sites to look for a site that has made an effort to accommodate people with disabilities. Problems can include text and colour schemes that are fixed, which means neither the text or the colour scheme can be altered by the viewer on their screen. Other examples include images that have not been provided with a description of the image in text for blind people, and web sites that rely on new technologies that are not available to all users. The law Politicians have provided a remedy for the lack of consideration for disabled users, namely the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the Act). The Act has been implemented in stages, and the crucial date for any organisation with a web site was 1 October 1999, when sections 21(1), (2)(d), (4), (6) and (10) were brought into force by The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Commencement Order No 6) Order 1999 SI 1999 No 1190 (c. 33). Sections 21(3) and (5) were brought into force on 26 April 1999 by the same statutory instrument. Before looking at the provisions of section 21, it may be pertinent to remind the reader that under the provisions section 19, it is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person: in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public; in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 21 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service; in the standard of service which he provides to the disabled person or the manner in which he provides it to him; or in the terms on which he provides a service to the disabled person. Section 19(3) goes on to provide examples of the services which section 20 and 21 applies. Sub-section (b) applies to access to and use of means of communications and sub-section (c) applies to access to and use of information services. Both of these sub-sections clearly apply to the design and functioning of a web site on the internet. To accompany the Act, there is also a Code of Practice (Access to Goods and Facilities and Premises). The Code is admissible as evidence in accordance with section 53(5) of the Act, and section 53(6) provides that where any provision of the Code appears to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings under the Act, the tribunal or court must take it into account in determining the question. The Disability Rights Commission recently issued a new code Proposals for a new code of practice: Rights of access, goods, facilities, services and premises, and, following the consultation period, the code is awaiting publication. The new code contains the following illustration: An airline company provides a flight reservation and booking service to the public on its web site. This is a provision of a service and is subject to the Act. taken from paragraph 2.16 of the proposed code, which is available on the Disability Rights Commission web site at http://www.drc-gb.org. The services affected by Part III of the Act The scope of services, definition of a provider and the extent of liability is set out in section 19(2), subject to the exceptions set out in section 19(5) in relation to education and the use of any means of transport. In addition, it should be noted that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 amends the Act so that most pre and post 16 education providers have obligations not to discriminate and to make reasonable adjustments. These provisions come into force in stages from September 2001, and they mean that those education providers with web sites will need to ensure that they are accessible to their disabled students. The provision of services includes the provision of any goods or facilities. A person is a provider of services if they are concerned with the provision, in the United Kingdom, of any service to members of the public. This can be in the private, public or voluntary sectors. In addition, it does not matter whether the service is provided at no cost to the user, or in return for a payment. The new code gives a non-exhaustive list of such services at paragraph 2.13. This list makes it explicitly clear that the majority of activities are included in the definition. Who is responsible under the terms of the Act Paragraph 2.14 of the proposed code indicates that every individual, from the managing director to the most junior employee is liable under the Act. In addition, it does not matter whether the employee is in full or part-time work, and whether they are in a permanent or temporary post. Sole traders, firms, companies and partnerships are all liable, as are the self-employed, employees, volunteers, contractors and agents. Who has rights under the Act Both adults and children are protected by the provisions of the Act. Sections 1 and 2, taken together with Schedules 1 and 2, set out the position in detail. Section 1(1) provides that disabled person is a person that has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. What is meant by discrimination The way in which a provider of a service can discriminate against a disabled person is set out in sections 20(1) and 20(2). Section 20(1) reads as follows: 20(1) For the purposes of section 19, a provider of services discriminates against a disabled person if- for a reason which relates to the disabled persons disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified. With respect to the duty under the terms of clause 20(1), a service provider is required to justify that the less favourable treatment is warranted. Section 20(3) permits less favourable treatment only if: in the opinion of the provider of services, one or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) are satisfied; and it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion. To establish whether justification is reasonable, the test is as follows: Subjective - what did the service provider believe? and Objective - did the service provider reasonably hold that belief? Paragraph 6.7 of the new code establishes that the service provider does not have to be an expert on disability, but is expected to consider all the circumstances of each situation. This includes the information available to the service provider, whether it was possible to obtain advice, and whether the service provider asked for and listened to the opinion of the disabled person concerned. Once a disabled person can show that they have been treated less favourably, it will be for the service provider to show that the action they took was justified. Of the conditions set out in subsection 4, the only reason that could be construed as being relevant in relation to the design and use of a web site is subsection (b), where a disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving informed consent. It is difficult to imagine how this justification can apply to the design of a web site, although some may try to argue that the provision of the service on different terms was necessary to provide the service at all. Duty of providers of services to make adjustments A service provider can also discriminate against a disabled person as a result of the terms set out in section 20(2), as follows: For the purposes of section 19, a provider of services also discriminates against a disabled person if- he fails to comply with a section 21 duty imposed on him in relation to the disabled person; and he cannot show that this failure to comply with that duty is justified. Further, the relevant parts of section 21(1) provide: 21(1) Where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect. 21(4) Where an auxiliary aid or service (for example, the provision of information on audio tape or of a sign language interpreter) would- enable disabled persons to make use of a service which a provider of services provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public, or facilitate the use by disabled persons of such a service it is the duty of the provider of that service to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to provide that auxiliary aid or service. The terms practice, policy and procedure relate to the way in which a service provider operates its business or provides a service. The meaning of practice, policy and procedure are explained in paragraph 5.6 of the new code: practice is what a service provider actually does; the policy is what a service provider intends to do; the procedure is how the service provider goes about its activities. As a result of the provisions of section 21, a provider of services is obliged to take a number of (reasonable) steps, the following being particularly relevant to web sites: to change a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use its service, and to provide, by the terms of section 21(4) an auxiliary aid or service if it would enable or make it easier for disabled people to make use of the service supplied by the service provider. The above steps can refer to the use of a web site in the same way as it refers to the quality of service provided in a physical environment. The duties contained in section 21 are anticipatory in nature, as paragraph 4.8 of the new code (and this is also contained in the existing Code) points out, the duty is owed to disabled people at large, because disabled people are a diverse group with different requirements which service providers should consider. This is a continuing duty, which means that service providers need to keep the duty under review at all times. As a result, the new Code suggests that the service providers should consider this to be an evolving duty, and not one that should be considered once and then forgotten. What is meant by reasonable steps The Act does not set out the factors that should be taken into account to establishing whether a provider of services has taken reasonable steps to make suitable adjustments. The proposed code suggests, at paragraph 4.11, that the reasonable steps to be taken by a particular service provider will depend on: the type of services being provided; the nature of the service provider and its resources; the effect of the disability on the individual disabled person. Paragraph 4.12 of the new code then provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account when considering what is reasonable: whether taking any particular steps would be effective in overcoming the difficulty that disabled people face in gaining access to the service in question; the extent to which it is practicable for the service provider to take the steps; the financial and other costs of making the adjustment; the extent of any disruption which taking the steps would cause; the extent of the service providers financial and other resources; the amount of any resources already spent on making adjustments; the availability of financial or other assistance. Whilst it is more likely to be reasonable that a service provider with substantial financial resources will have to make physical adjustments that may be expensive, it is difficult to believe that any provider of services could argue poverty as an excuse for not ensuring their second or third generation web site should not be designed for the use of both disabled and able people. The employment provisions of the Act make similar provision for the duty to make reasonable adjustments. In considering this issue, The Employment Appeal Tribunal has stressed the objective nature of the test of whether the duty to make adjustments has been discharged by the employer, and it is clear that the Tribunal puts itself in the shoes of the employer to decide whether or not it thinks other adjustments should have been made, Morse v Wiltshire CC [1998[ IRLR 352 EAT. It is therefore likely that, when determining whether or not a service provider can afford any changes, the court will be looking objectively at this, and considering whether, for example, the service providers profits would allow it to make such adjustments. In addition, the governing body of the web, the World Wide Web Consortium, has laid down accessibility criteria and guidelines (http://www.w3.org/WAI/References). Many web designers fail to design web sites with these guidelines in mind, although it is probable that many web designers may not even be aware of the guidelines. A common failure with many web sites which prevents disabled users from using a web site, is the failure to fill in the tags on the pages that describe an image. A visually impaired visitor to a web site uses a screen reader to read the text on the web site aloud. The tag field can have a description of the image, for instance Field of sunflowers. Many web designers fail to add such images, which means the visually impaired visitor hears the word image only, which is meaningless. Guidance on what reasonable adjustments should be made in practice, or the auxiliary aids or services that should be provided, are set out in chapter 5 of the new code. Both paragraph 5.23, in relation to people with a hearing disability, and paragraph 5.26, in relation to people with a visual impairment, include access to web sites to disabled people as examples that service providers should provide. Failure to make reasonable adjustments The combined effect of the provisions of section 19(1)(b), 20(2) and 21(10) provide that a service provider must comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid committing an act of unlawful discrimination. A disabled person can initiate a claim against a service provider if: the service provider fails to do what is required; and that failure makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for that disabled person to obtain access to any service provided by the service provider to members of the public; and the service provider cannot show that such a failure is justified. In order for a failure to make to make a reasonable adjustment to be justified, the failure must be necessary so as not to endanger the health or safety of any person, in accordance with section 20(4)(a) or the disabled person must be incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement or of giving informed consent as set out in section 20(4)(b) - neither of which would seem to be likely in relation to web sites. Research into poor web site design The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) carried out research in August 2000, testing 17 web sites of high street stores and banks against the following criteria: Whether the text was legible. Important factors to consider were the text and background colours and whether they contrasted well. Patterned backgrounds are particularly difficult to read against. Whether images had alternative text to provide a verbal description of the image for those visiting the site who use speech synthesis software. If frames were used, whether a noframes tag is offered to provide a link to a frames-free version of the web site. It is possible that some blind people use software that cannot read frames. In addition, if frames were used, whether they had titles. Whether the web site was easy to navigate. Graphical navigation links need to be supported by alternative text, and the destination of the link should be obvious. For instance, if a link reads click here, where the link is pointing is not obvious to a blind visitor. Did all the web pages pass the Bobby test? The Centre for Applied Special Technology (http://www.cast.org/bobby) has created an automated checking package, with the name Bobby. Although this software does not consider every aspect of a web site, nevertheless it will test most web sites for basic design features that may cause problems for disabled visitors. The test results were published in Get the message online, Campaign Report 15 (Report), by Julie Howell, in August 2000, and was reprinted in 2001 (Copies of this Report are available at 5 from the RNIB Customer Services Department). In summary, of the financial institutions visited (Abbey National, Alliance and Leicester, Nat West and HSBC), all failed the assessment, even though, as was pointed out by Julie Howell, banking is regarded as a universal essential service. The supermarkets (Asda, Marks and Spencer, Safeway, Sainsburys, Somerfield, Tesco) achieved no better, although Marks and Spencer and Somerfield passed the Bobby test. The two fast food sites (Pizza Hut and Pizza Express) were particularly poor and failed all the tests. The clothing and retail stores (Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins and Evans) all failed the tests, and of the remaining web sites visited, WH Smith and the Post Office, neither helped disabled visitors to any extent. The Report made the following recommendations as a result of the findings: Web site designers should take responsibility to ensure everyone, regardless of their ability or disability, can read their designs. Companies who have web sites, plan to produce a web site or intend to develop second and third generation web sites should recognise the needs of blind and partially sighted visitors. Blind and partially sighted people were urged to get in touch with organisations direct to raise the issues if web sites were poorly designed. Companies featured in the Report were encouraged to acknowledge the needs of disabled people and take steps to improve the design of their web sites. Since this research was published, Tesco set out to build a web site that was user-friendly to disabled people. The new web site was launched earlier this year, at http://www.tesco/access. (Further information about the RNIB Campaign for Good Web Design is available from http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital). Legal action No legal action has been taken in the UK to date in relation to the poor design of web sites. RNIB says that it has considered taking up a number of cases against service providers with regard to their web sites, but when RNIB raises the compliance issues under the Act, companies have tended to alter their web site to make it accessible, rather than resists legal action. This confirms how easy it is to make the necessary changes. The Disability Rights Commission can also fund representation for individuals, where it believes discrimination has occurred. Furthermore, under the provisions of the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, it has the power to instigate formal investigations into sectors, such as the world wide web, where it believes that discrimination is taking place. A complaint was made by Mr Bruce Maguire to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (the Commission) in Australia under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, decision H 99/115 decided on 24 August 2000 (available at http://scaleplus.law.au/html/ddadec/0/2000/0/DD000120.htm). Mr Maguire, who is blind, submitted a complaint on 7 June 1999 that he was unlawfully discriminated against by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (the Committee). He claimed unlawful discrimination for failure to provide braille copies of information to order tickets, braille copies of the souvenir program and failure of the Committee to provide a web site to which he could obtain access. In its defence, the Committee argued that the development of a web site was not a service under the provisions of section 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which reads as follows: 24 Goods, services and facilities It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the grounds of the other persons disability or a disability of any of that other persons associates: by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person; or in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or in the manner in which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person. This section does not render it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the persons disability if the provision of the goods or services, or making facilities available, would impose unjustifiable hardship on the person who provides the goods or services or makes the facilities available. In considering the nature of the web site, the Inquiry Commissioner, The Hon William Carter QC pointed out on page 8 of his Decision that The internet is now a well established phenomenon, its capacity to store information of immense proportions to which one can have access is a fact of life. The respondent in creating its own web site sought to include in it a considerable body of information to which any person could have access. The web site intended to act as a source of information for use across the world. It was clear that the web site was a service relating to entertainment, as defined by section 4, and it was determined that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 applied to the Committees web site. As a result, the failure by the Committee to provide a web site that was available to be used by a person blind from birth was unlawful in that it constituted a breach of section 24, because the web site (a) did not include alternative text on all the images and image maps links, and the disabled user could not obtain access to (b) the Index to Sports from the Schedule page or (c) the Results Tables. The discrimination was determined to be direct discrimination, within the meaning of section 5, although the Commissioner also decided that if Mr Maguire was not discriminated directly in the terms of section 5, it could be found that indirect discrimination had occurred in terms of section 6. The Committee also argued that changing the web site would impose unjustifiable hardship, in accordance with section 11, which provides: 11 Unjustifiable hardship For the purposes of this Act, in determining what constitutes unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case are to be taken into account including: the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue or be suffered by any persons concerned; and the effect of the disability of a person concerned; and the financial circumstances and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made by the person claiming unjustifiable hardship; and in the case of the provision of services, or the making of available facilities - an action plan given to the Commission under section 64. The Commissioner, in considering the application under section 11, was required to make a decision based on the evidence of expert witnesses. It appears from the discussion of the procedural points by the Commissioner, that the Committee failed to fully co-operate in the preliminary stages of the action. This delay was evidenced by a number of points listed by the Commissioner on page 22 of his Decision. In addition, the expert witnesses appearing on behalf of the Committee in relation to the section 11 argument were not able to avoid the obvious weaknesses in their evidence. In reaching his judgment on this point, the Commissioner pointed out, on page 19 of his Decision, that the Committee never seriously considered the issue [whether the correction of the web site should be carried out] and only when the hearing was imminent did it attempt to support its rejection of the complainants complaint by resort to a process which was both inadequate and unconvincing. The Commissioner took the following factors into account in reaching the conclusion that the Commission could not avoid liability for its breach of section 24 by claiming unjustifiable hardship: If a web site was provided that could be used by Mr Maguire and other vision impaired persons, it would constitute a considerable benefit. It was only right that he and others should obtain access to the same body of information available to a sighted person in relation to such an important event. The benefit was considerable and the detriment to the Committee would be modest. If the Committee had addressed the issue earlier in the development of the site, the effort to improve it would have been negligible. In assessing whether any suggested hardship is unjustified, it was important to consider the nature of Mr Maguires blindness and its effect in the particular context. Mr Maguire can minimise the effects of blindness when using the internet, but could only do so on the Committees web site if the information was presented in a form that was easy to use. The Committee is a major agency which is supported by considerable financial infrastructure, including government funding. Whilst no precise assessment was made of the cost of rectifying the problems on the web site, such changes were modest in relative terms. Under 11(d) the service provider can prepare and implement an action plan, giving a copy to the Commission under the terms of section 64. The Committee, from the times of its formation and involvement in the Sydney Olympic Games as a service provider, was likely to come into contact with persons with a disability as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Had the Committee prepared and implemented such a plan, it would have been recognised that Mr Maguire and those like him would have to be catered for in the design of the web site. The Committee neither prepared such a plan or presented a plan to the Commission. However, the Commissioner did not draw any adverse inference on this issue. The Commissioner decided that the complaint was substantial, and determined: That the Committee engaged in conduct that was unlawful under section 24 in that it provided for the use of Mr Maguire a web site which because of his blindness was to a significant extent inaccessible; and Made a declaration that the Committee did all that was necessary to render its web site accessible to Mr Maguire by 15 September 200 by (a) including alternative text on all images and image map links on its web site; (b) providing access to the Index of Sports from the Schedule page; and (c) providing access to the Results Tables to be used on the web site during the Sydney Olympic Games. The issue of compensation was adjourned to establish whether it subsequently became apparent that Mr Maguire suffered loss and damage. Claim for compensation by Mr Maguire It was subsequently determined by the Commissioner that the Committee only partially complied with his determination dated 24 August 2000. A further hearing was arranged for 6 November 2000 and the Commissioner gave the written reasons for his decision on 18 November 2000 (available at http://scaleplus.law.au/html/ddadec/0/2000/0/DD000200.htm). Any compensation is determined under the provisions of section 103(1)(b)(iv) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and is considered under three headings: the sum payable in respect of injuries for the complainants hurt and humiliation on account of his being discriminated against, an amount for legal expenses, and any aggravated damages. The Commissioner pointed out that Mr Maguire has been blind from birth, but despite his disability, his competence at reading braille and his application of that skill to computer technology was obviously of a high order. Mr Maguire holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Macquarie University, his major subjects were Linguistics and Philosophy, he had completed units of a Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications at Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Learning and was engaged at the time of his application in a Master of Policy and Applied Social Research Degree at Macquarie University. As a result, the Commissioner decided that Mr Maguires expectations of being able to obtain access to information from the Committees web site were high and that the Committee was dismissive of Mr Maguires concerns from the moment he initiated his complaint. In consequence, the response by the Committee was very hurtful of Mr Maguire and the suggestion by the Committee that he ask a sighted person to assist him navigate the Olympic web site has inconsistent with his expectations and achievements, despite his disability. To dismiss Mr Maguire and to continue to be dismissive of him made him feel angry and rejected by a significant statutory agent within the community. The Commissioner was satisfied that Mr Maguires limited access to the Olympic web site caused him considerable feeling of hurt, humiliation and rejection. Furthermore, the Committee made public statements after 24 August 2000 justifying its failure to comply with the decision of the Commissioner by citing material which had been specifically rejected by the Commissioner in the earlier hearing. As a result of this public statement, Mr Maguire suffered a final indignity. The Commissioner awarded the sum of A$20,000 to be paid to Mr Maguire. The response It is clear that the Act imposes a duty on owners of web sites to ensure all visitors can use the web site equally. This is a light duty, (a discussion of the guidelines discussed by the expert witnesses in Mr Maguires case can be found in a paper by Martin Sloan, Web Accessibility and the DDA, The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), 25, http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-2/sloan.html) because the technical issues are easy to implement at the planning stage. The RNIB in its Report provides hints on designing web sites in Appendix 2. There is no reason why all companies with a web site cannot take into account the needs of disabled users when they design second and third generation web sites. It was mentioned above that the new code suggested that the service providers should consider this to be an evolving duty. So, by taking into account the free advice of the RNIB and guidelines of the Web Accessibility Initiative, no organisation can offer the excuse any longer that they are justified in failing to provide access for disabled visitors to their web site. The point is, that disabled visitors may well be customers or potential customers, which indicates the business sense of ensuring disabled people are not discriminated against when designing a web site. What message is an organisation giving to disabled people by failing to ensure their web site cannot be seen adequately or at all by a substantial number of people? The business reasons for adhering to the provisions of the Act should be sufficient in themselves. Further, lawyers can take immediate action by altering precedents relating to contracts with web designers, as Stephen Mason has already done to the web designer precedents he has written and which are available at http://www.ebldirect.com web site. If the internet is as good and all-empowering as many claim it is, then minor technical issues relating to the design of a web site should not be used to prevent everybody in taking advantage of the empowerment of the world wide web. Stephen Mason and Catherine Casserley Legal Officer, Royal National Institute for the Blind, 2001. Additional material provided by Julie Howell, Campaigns Officer (Accessible Internet) Royal National Institute for the Blind. stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk The authors give you a licence to download and print copies of this article PROVIDED THAT you (a) retain the copyright notice at the end of the article in its entirety, (b) clearly identify this article as being written by the authors in electronic and printed versions and (c) only use it for your private use - commercial use of this article is strictly forbidden without written permission from the authors. 0B{ Mm`Qpq)cV!!.#J#$$r%%%&'l(S--./N/5399}AAGGKKXXO[t[\\f____bbbbcwffjjkklkkklvv{{X}z}}'(5656W|S_ Mnq*6cV!!.#K#$ & Fdhxxdhxx $dhxxxx|S_ Mnq*6cV!!.#K#$$r%%&&'(m(((1)_+S--.o../N/11142m2534Q444z566P799                                               <$$r%%&&'(m(((1)_+S--.o../N/1 dhxx & Fdhxx & Fdhxx & Fdhxx & Fdhxx & Fdhxxdhxx11142m2534Q444z566P799;';];;)<<=O= & Fdhxx & Fdhxxdhxx & Fdhxx dhxx9;';];;)<<=O===>H>?BEGGHIIIKKhL/MMNO:QUOUUVWXXZ \^__`Payvs                                                                +O===>H>?BEGGHIIIKKhL/MMNO:QUOUUVW & Fdhxx & FdhxxWXXZ \^__`Pabbc|ijjj4klkkl & F dhxx & F dhxx & F dhxx & Fdhxx dhxxdhxx & FdhxxPabbc|ijjj4klkklYpq#stuVxxryz{{}$~F~^~}ωm(   %   $   #   "   !                             $lYpq#stuVxxryz{{}$~F~^~}ωm(xx & Fdhxx & Fdhxxdhxx(P. A!"#$% [,@,Normal B*CJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Font0+0 Endnote TextCJ6*@6Endnote ReferenceH*22 Footnote TextCJ8&@!8Footnote ReferenceH*(               e r!(m.5<EbLT\|emru|υ(yi6 (I$1O=Wl(JLMOPR9Pa(KNQ5'*xomy'* Julie Howell?C:\Documents and Settings\jhowell\My Documents\CfGWD\webdda.doc Henny Swan[\\HQ2\DATA\ERD\INFOPUB\SHARED\Web Accessibility\Web Accessibility Centre\Content\webdda.docHieronymous Bosch"C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\wda article.doc eڬB0ڬh:5Ę\SPE9u^ڬ)`ڬ h!aPECFeڬ_=~ڬ"ڬ*@ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() @ 56B*CJ() 9u^_=~)`T\SeCFeh:" h!aB0` @ OJQJo( @EPSON Stylus Photo 810 SeriesLPT1:EPIJNL50EPSON Stylus Photo 810 SeriesEPSON Stylus Photo 810 Series^ ohh0DLLName16=EPIGUE6D.dllDLLName32=EPID2E6A.dllEPSON Stylus Photo 810 Seriesdhh hh x*** x***2RL EPSON Stylus Photo 810 Series^ ohh0DLLName16=EPIGUE6D.dllDLLName32=EPID2E6A.dllEPSON Stylus Photo 810 Seriesdhh hh x*** x***2RL t(p@G:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial#hZ{FZ{F[\ZFs;#0h:Web site design and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Stephen MasonHieronymous Bosch Oh+'0 0 LX t   ;Web site design and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995eb Stephen Masonn teptepNormal Hieronymous Boschd 2erMicrosoft Word 8.0 @@cqR@|R@|RFs ՜.+,D՜.+,p, hp   I.M.Legald;j ;Web site design and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{CA47D6A3-0EFC-4C52-9DE0-5A0385B7B81E}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSUVWXYZ[\]_`abcdeghijklmpRoot Entry F`R gwRr1TableTWordDocument*SummaryInformation(^DocumentSummaryInformation8fCompObjjObjectPool gwR gwR  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q