The UK Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) of 1995 states that it is unlawful for-- "a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person in failing to comply with its provisions". In the 1995 DDA however, no express mention of relating this to websites was mentioned.
Part III of the DDA refers to the provision of goods, facilities and services. The 1995 DDA was refined in May 2002 with the publishing by the disability Rights commission (DRC) of the code of practise External link to PDF This document, for the first time, specifically mentions web-sites in terms of discrimination and the law.
This 175 page document has the following quotes relevant to the accessibility of web-sites:
Section III of the DDA, which refers to accessible websites, came into force on 1st October 1999 and the Code of Practice for this section of the DDA was published on 27th May 2002. However, many are under the misapprehension that the new laws were only implemented in October 2004 with the final section of the DDA coming into law. However, this section of the DDA was not related to the accessibility of web-sites -- It dealt solely with such things as physical access to buildings etc., and it is not related to the internet or websites in any way.
Additionally, web-site accessibility is of particular legal importance in relation to those involved in the provision of educational materials. -- Educational institutions are obliged, under both the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001), to ensure their web-sites do not discriminate against a disabled person in relation to services provided, either to students or the public at large.
"Disabled" May include people with:If a website is unnecessarily hindering access to individuals suffering any such disabilities this may be interpreted as disability discrimination and open the website to potential legal prosecutions.
Priority 1 checkpoints (High Priority) (Level A compliance) A Web content developer must satisfy these checkpoints. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document. Satisfying these checkpoints is a basic requirement for some groups to be able to use Web documents.
Priority 2 checkpoints (Medium Priority) (Level double A compliance means satisfying all Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints) A Web content developer should satisfy these checkpoints. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying these checkpoints will remove significant barriers to accessing Web documents.
Priority 3 (Low Priority) (Level triple A compliance means satisfying all Priority 1, 2 and 3 checkpoints) A Web content developer may address these checkpoints. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying these checkpoints will improve access to Web documents.
The law in the UK does not define which of these levels is acceptable or required, it merely states that discrimination is illegal. It would seem reasonable for website owners to expect some level of protection if they at least ensure their website is W3C WAI compliant to Level A.
Note however that W3C WAI standards use the terms "must satisfy" in respect of Priority 1 checkpoints (Level A), the term "should satisfy" in respect of Priority 2 checkpoints (Level double A) and "may address" in respect of Priority 3 (Level triple A) checkpoints. This implies that a website needs to be Level double A compliant to be comfortable with their position relative to the formal standards available. Level double A is arguably the industry standard.
Frequently now various tests and independant studies are being undertaken to examine website accessibility and websites are being 'named and shamed'. So arguably the higher the level of compliance the better: I recommend level double A conformance as the standard acceptable level of conformance.
