Websites still breaking the Law! Ammended 2005 DDA
In 2005 the DDA of 1995 was extended and required information providers to make their services accessible to users with disabilities.
An investigation by the Disabilities Rights Commission in 2004 found that over 80% of websites were unable to be used by people with disabilities.
It is now 4 years since the act was implemented and one aim of this survey is to discover whether things have changed.
Please click on the link to participate in this survey.
http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2jq02j6fxbwvfmp/start
Please feel free to critique as this is part of academic research.
Thank you in advance.
Share: 
| Eric wrote: |
| In 2005 the DDA of 1995 was extended and required information providers to make their services accessible to users with disabilities. |
Er, no, the 2005 Act was mostly to do with public bodies (and duties thereof) and disability discrimination in transport. Websites and information provision was covered since the 1995 Act.
It's therefore 14 years since the DDA mandated reasonable adjustments for websites - the codes of practices accompanying the 1995 DDA made this clear.
I'll have a go at your survey, but you might want to change the preamble otherwise it gives the impression you're misinformed about it, and that might not inspire confidence in the survey.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| Eric wrote: |
| An investigation by the Disabilities Rights Commission in 2004 found that over 80% of websites were unable to be used by people with disabilities. It is now 4 years since the act was implemented and one aim of this survey is to discover whether things have changed. |
I can't help but find it more than a little ironic that despite specifically wanting people with disabilities to fill in your survey that the survey itself is not accessible. You need form labels, for a start... (again, like I said, doesn't exactly inspire confidence when the basics are missing)
Can you advise which academic research institution this is associated with? Or alternatively provide some of the documentation around the research? It appears to be a very poorly disguised attempt to drum up some business about site evaluations by scaremongering site owners into believing they are breaking the law, when it appears your ability to deliver accessibility is not much better, giving the inaccessible nature of the survey.
Of course, I might be wrong, which is why I'm asking for some references/documentation to convince me that this is bona fide research...
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
I'm a sighted non-mouse user and I have given in. Too hard to complete.
Um... and you have mis-spelled 'survey' at the top of the survey.
Liam McGee, www.communis.co.uk
Share:
...and 'amended' in the title of this post 
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| JackP wrote: | ||
Er, no, the 2005 Act was mostly to do with public bodies (and duties thereof) and disability discrimination in transport. Websites and information provision was covered since the 1995 Act. It's therefore 14 years since the DDA mandated reasonable adjustments for websites - the codes of practices accompanying the 1995 DDA made this clear. I'll have a go at your survey, but you might want to change the preamble otherwise it gives the impression you're misinformed about it, and that might not inspire confidence in the survey. |
"(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person—
(a) 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;"
Please note the word public. Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applied only to publicly accessible sites. Intranets and private sites were not covered, this therefore exludes many disabled individuals from accessing a significant number of services.
The provisions introduced in 2005 extended the scope of the act to cover public institutions and also introduced a new duty to private clubs. It has been 4 years since the 1995 mandate has become explicit.
Share:
| JackP wrote: | ||
I can't help but find it more than a little ironic that despite specifically wanting people with disabilities to fill in your survey that the survey itself is not accessible. You need form labels, for a start... (again, like I said, doesn't exactly inspire confidence when the basics are missing) Can you advise which academic research institution this is associated with? Or alternatively provide some of the documentation around the research? It appears to be a very poorly disguised attempt to drum up some business about site evaluations by scaremongering site owners into believing they are breaking the law, when it appears your ability to deliver accessibility is not much better, giving the inaccessible nature of the survey. Of course, I might be wrong, which is why I'm asking for some references/documentation to convince me that this is bona fide research... |
As I stated before, this is purely academic, it has no hidden agendas.
The online survey was hosted by a third party and I will inform them about your feedback.
For references and feedback, provide me an email address and I will send them to you.
Share:
| Eric wrote: |
| Please note the word public. Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applied only to publicly accessible sites. |
| Disability Discrimination Act 1995 wrote: |
| a person is “a provider of services” if he is concerned with the provision, in the United Kingdom, of services to the public or to a section of the public; and |
Public institutions were already covered, if you think otherwise, you're mis-reading the 1995 Act. Although admittedly the 2005 Act increased the duty of public bodies under the DDA...
Having said all that, irrespective of when a particular point came into play, the fact is that it did and so we come to your survey:
| Eric wrote: |
| The online survey was hosted by a third party and I will inform them about your feedback. |
| Eric wrote: |
| For references and feedback, provide me an email address and I will send them to you. |
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
JackP, is there a subtext here which I've missed? Eric's profile says he is a Student. All signs point to that being true. As such, I don't understand your accusations of him being an underhanded business.
Indeed, it is normal for surveys by university students to be hosted by websites with low accessibility. Probably because these are more common, thus easier to find and more widely known by university staff.
Furthermore, the surveys linked to in topics on Accessify Forum are almost always from sites fitting this description. In my experience.
Eric, rest assured that you are innocent until proven guilty!
Share:
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| JackP, is there a subtext here which I've missed? |
| Survey Q9 wrote: |
| Are there any particular websites that you think are not accesible and would like us to evaluate [...] If need be, we will compile a report and present it to the websites' authors. |
This sounded to me like an attempt to drum up business: name an inaccessible site, and we'll send it a report saying that they are breaking the law and they need remedial work (and guess who can provide it...?) - particularly given the emphasis on lawbreaking elsewhere...
| Survey Q6 wrote: |
| ... 80% of websites were breaking the law by not being accessible |
Which is why I was after the name of the university or institution where the research was being carried out, particularly since while his profile might say he is a student, there's no link to a university or similar, plus his email address is not an .ac. type one, and nor does it contain 'Eric' anywhere. Nor has he posted from an IP address associated with an academic institution: all I am after is the chance to double-check...
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Eric, if you could tell us more about your research I think many people's suspicions would be allayed. Also, will the results of your research be available for us to see? That might get more people interested.
It would also be good to get clarification on this point:
| Survey wrote: |
| If you are interested in participating in evaluating a website of your choice with us, please leave your email address and we will get back to you. |
James Coltham - Local gov web manager by day, web and accessibility blogger at lunchtime, freelancer by night. Tweets at @prettysimple.
Share:
Why should Jack P assume that ayone interested in Accessibility is in it for business?
The bully-like attitude potrayed in his comments has already discredited the survey on this forum.
As cleary stated in the survey, it is only for academic research and the most I could get from this is a good grade.
I wish to thank everyone for the feedback. I think I have learnt enough for now.
Share:
Question 9 looks like he's offering to do a good deed. And to do it for free, in order to interact and educate authors of inaccessible websites.
The use of "we" and "us" are in line with presenting the survey as being from the academic institution, rather than being from an individual. Eric, are you allowed to name the University or other organisation you are studying at? Sometimes they do not allow this.
I hope JackP will apologise and retract his accusations. It would be sad for him to drive away someone interested in studying accessibility due to unfounded suspicions.
Share:
| Eric wrote: |
| Why should Jack P assume that ayone interested in Accessibility is in it for business? The bully-like attitude potrayed in his comments has already discredited the survey on this forum. |
I am sorry you feel that way. I accept that you state that the survey is only for academic research. I was sceptical because a lot of people come on to this forum with the sole intention to promote their own business without really wishing to contribute to the forum, and many have done so by telling lies and/or providing misleading information (such as dyslexic duncan) and without providing any information about the university, school, or course you are doing, or what/when the research will be made available, there wasn't any information made available to me (or anyone else) to convince ourselves of your credentials.
For example, I don't really think that asking the name of the institution you are studying at is really too onerous.
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| I hope JackP will apologise and retract his accusations. It would be sad for him to drive away someone interested in studying accessibility due to unfounded suspicions. |
Given that Eric's last post was from an IP address associated with De Montfort University, then now it certainly seems more to me as though it is a genuine enquiry (and if the first posts had come from there...). On that basis, I apologise if I made him feel uncomfortable, but I think given past issues it was not unreasonable to ask for some more information.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share: