Under the Disability Discrimination Act (1999 & 2004 amendment) I can be prosecuted (alright, I admit it is unlikely) if my web sites can’t be accessed by people with impairments. (For example, a webpage must be OK for software that reads out the content for the blind. It can’t base navigation on colours that colourblind people can’t distinguish.)

I happen to regard the sites that I’ve got some input into as pretty useful. Sadly, I can’t really flatter myself that they are a matter of life or death to anyone.

So how is it that I could be prosecuted if a blind person can’t read the web site, when I can’t find a single item of dispensed or over-the-counter medicine (MEDICINE, that was, not sweets or makeup or fabric softener) where the crucial instructions are written in more than 7 point text?

7 point text might as well be invisible ink as far as I am concerned. I genuinely cannot see the text, unless I shine stage lighting on it and squint. And I don’t even wear glasses.

Does the DDA not apply to anything where it might matter? I can’t think of any circumstances where misreading our websites might injure someone – unless they read them backwards and act on perceived Judas priest-style secret messages. On the other hand, I am sure everyone could think of several ways in which failing to read crucial information on food or medicine could lead to serious injury or death.

Technorati Tags: Disability Discrimination Act, DDA, Disability, Discrimination, Law, legislation, Society