4 ms·
This has always applied in the UK since the disability act. The chain of liability is similar, the requirement for clause in supplier contract is similar. Yet
by NeedMoreTea 7y ago
This has always applied in the UK since the disability act.
The chain of liability is similar, the requirement for clause in supplier contract is similar. Yet the third-party (OpenCart) appears to be where liability rests. So she needs to counter sue her supplier. That's just how it works.
So I see no difference at all for an aware store owner who wants a website.
- im3w1l 7y agoSeems like an undue burden to place on a small business owner. Having to both defend in one lawsuit and sue another party when they likely aren't knowledgeable or willing to take the risk of either.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoshrug That's the legal system. I didn't make it. A clause in supplier contract guaranteeing whatever - accessibility or all images being licensed covers you.
- im3w1l 7y agoCicrcling back to > If this is required to get sites to give a shit about accessibility once again, great! Given how enforcement works, I can't share your enthusiasm, and in fact I will oppose accessibility regulation.
- CathedralBorrow 7y agoWell, for the sake of people who need accessibility I hope you won't be successful with that.
- im3w1l 7y agoWalk the path you propose and you will get a world where chains displace all other restaurants, where police swoop in on kids' lemonade stands. Why? When you can make sensible regulations that target the service providers like shopify, or whatever restaurants use instead and just escape the dilemma?