DDA Compliance Legal Requirements
Does anybody know where I can get a UK Government published document actually stating legal requirements for a Web Site to make it Comply with the UK DDA Legislation.
Share: 
No such beast I'm afraid.
The nearest thing that I'm aware of is this
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml
however it doesn't state exactly what makes a website accessible.
WAI AA as a minimum IMHO.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
Basically the problem is, nobody knows. Until a case actually reaches court, it's a guessing game. Terms like "reasonable adjustment" make it hard to guess. What's reasonable?
You can get educated guesses though. This from Out Law is a good writeup.
-Matt
Matt Machell
Web Design and Development Blog
Member of the Multipack
Share:
| Matt wrote: |
| Terms like "reasonable adjustment" make it hard to guess. What's reasonable? |
And more pertinently, what is reasonable for you? A court would [probably] expect a high-street store's online presence to have much more in the way of accessibility adjustments than a online store selling pictures you paint in your garage.
One of the key things I would look for is to ensure that you have a clear accessibility policy and accessible contact form or contact details. Encourage people to contact you if they have a problem.
The way the law works, your site would actually have to present a barrier to a specific person (not just a theoretical guideline breach). In practice, I believe (but obviously IANAL) that providing a mechanism for people to contact you if they have a problem, and then trying your best to fix that problem or helping them round it would stand you in very good stead.
Obviously, the further you're going down the accessibility route in the first place (does the site work without images? can you use it without a mouse? and so on) then the less likely it is that someone will specifically encounter a problem.
| Jim Barter wrote: |
| WAI AA as a minimum IMHO |
I disagree: I would say it depends very much on the resources available to the user - and in many cases WAI fails do not equate to inaccessible websites. A quotation that is not marked up as such will fail WAI-AA and doesn't necessarily mean your site is inaccessible...
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| JackP wrote: | ||
I disagree: I would say it depends very much on the resources available to the user - and in many cases WAI fails do not equate to inaccessible websites. A quotation that is not marked up as such will fail WAI-AA and doesn't necessarily mean your site is inaccessible... |
Yes but the question that was asked is regarding meeting the DDA requirements, as both the UK and European parliaments state that AA is the minimum requirement for their sites then logically you should be safe from the DDA by achieving that benchmark.
Jack in terms of real world accessibility I totally agree with you though.
If it can go wrong it will. So don't worry about it.
Share:
as Alun Said 
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
| Quote: |
| the UK and European parliaments state that AA is the minimum requirement |
Where can I find the UK Parliament document that makes this statement ??
Also in my oppinion this is the same as introducing a Speed Limit to a road without stating what the maximun speed is. What were the Opposition benches doing when this went through. They could have had a field day with enforcement legislation with no quantifying definitions or boundaries.
Share:
It was / is in the documentation issued to government departments about 4 years back.
From what I remember they are on this site http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk I apologise in advance if that's the wrong site, its been a while.
If it can go wrong it will. So don't worry about it.
Share:
| AlunD wrote: |
| It was / is in the documentation issued to government departments about 4 years back.
From what I remember they are on this site http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk I apologise in advance if that's the wrong site, its been a while. |
Wasn't it the Handbook for government Web sites?
I used to have a link for this but it kept getting moved around
, now it's somewhere on the cabinetoffice.
Share:
Thanks for all the directions. I have found it in a document titled:
"Illustrated Handbook for Web Management Teams (html)"
Chapter 4 Section 4 (2.4)
Whivh in turn is headed:
"Building in universal accessibility + checklist" This section 2.4 was however published about 5 tears ago
One of the Checklist bullet points states:
"All web pages must comply to the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) ‘A’ standard!"
So there we have it I have searched for some time now and cannot find any Legislative quantification of requirements whatsoever. This checklist set is intended to set the standards for any .gov web page so it would be reasonably safe to "assume" that compliance with this chcklist would ensure not falling faul of the law regards DDA UK.
Now theres a bold assumpyion.
Share:
Sorry to say that's been superseded.
I'm looking at a document issued by the improvement and development agency to all local authorities dated 1 September 2004 and that clearly states the requirement is AA. Its entitled, priority outcomes explanatory notes for practitioners Ver 1.0
"To fulfil the requirements of this outcome, all pages published on council websites should conform to level AA of the W3C accessibility standards.
The European Parliament Resolution (2002)0325 regarding the accessibility of public websites stresses the fact that, for websites to be accessible, it is essential that they are double-A compliant."
Also in the eGif interoperability framework document, technical standards catalogue Ver 6.2 Final issued Sept 05
"Compliance to level AA is recommended; see the Cabinet Office e-Guidelines for UK Government websites for full interpretation of WCAG." with a link that has moved
If you PM me your email I'll happily send you the documents
If it can go wrong it will. So don't worry about it.
Share:
| smeagain wrote: |
| So there we have it I have searched for some time now and cannot find any Legislative quantification of requirements whatsoever. |
That's correct. Because what is deemed a reasonable adjustment for a sole trader would be very different from a reasonable adjustment for a multinational. Furthermore, no action can be taken simply because a site fails to hit a particular guideline - a site must be causing discrimination against someone.
To me, that's the whole point of the DDA (whether for websites or otherwise). It's about being reasonable which in my opinion at least makes it a much better, stronger, and more future proof legislation than if it had been tied to something such as WCAG 1.0 which is now rather outdated.
Granted, that doesn't make things easier for developers, but as the legislation is concerned with improving things for people with disabilities rather than web developers, that's kind of the point...
But Alun is also correct in saying that the level expected of governmental websites (whether central gov, local gov, etc) is WCAG 1.0 AA. This was agreed as an EU wide thing in Riga I think.
Currently the CoI are developing a document called "delivering inclusive websites" - they've just finished a consultation period on the first draft and I would hope to see the next version soon - which will hopefully provide useful guidance for governmental sites.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
I appreciate all that has been said by contributors to this thread. However, when developing a site from scratch it is possible to design with these reasonable sensible objectives, my first problem came when a new client asked me to go through their site and ensure it was DDA Compliant and asked what standards I would need to impliment. This started me looking and I have been looking ever since.
The standards Reccommended in various documents differ and do not even seem to follow a date advancing consitency. For example I have come accross a reccomendation in a government document that quotes a standard older than one of it's own OLDER documents qouting a more recent standard.
I am all in favour of reasonableness and sensible implimetation, but some consistent level of information dissemination and clearly stated Expectations of whichever government agency is charged with enforcing UK DDA compliance.
When specifically employed to update a Site to be DDA Compliant, it is a precarious contractual position to be in when requirements are so vague and variable.
Share:
| smeagain wrote: |
| my first problem came when a new client asked me to go through their site and ensure it was DDA Compliant and asked what standards I would need to impliment. |
I would however tend to go along with what has been said elsewhere on this thread: if you can meet WCAG 1.0 at level AA, you'll have shown you'll have removed a lot of the barriers and I personally (although I don't imagine I'd be called as an expert witness in court!) would say that I would think this was at least reasonable for most circumstances.
You might find it useful to look at WCAG 2.0 as well though: this isn't yet a formal standard but looks as though it may be better than WCAG 1.0 as it is more focussed around the user experience.
Another thing to consider is cognitive impairments such as dyslexia. Ensure that the text is nice and clear, don't right justify text and so on.
I'm not convinced it's actually possible to ensure a site is "DDA-proof" in itself; you'd need to have a mechanism for reporting problems and a willingness to resolve them too... as I think it's quite reasonable to expect that...
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Thanks for that useful input Jack.
I actually have another fear with regards to where this might end up. Specifically with the EU situation. I expect that the UK most likely has or if not yet is about to be regulated/legislated on this Issue by EU Directives which can typically get very detailed in a controlling way. When whatever is published comes out, I suspect that in EU Speak there will be no such word as Reasonable. One of the Member states will be charged with providing the Expertise/Commissioner or whatever when the time comes and I have heard (only rumours) that it may be Greece.
Share: