某些国家/地区是否强制要求网站可访问性？无法访问会造成什么后果？
在某些国家/地区是否强制要求所有网站都可访问？
如果是这样，如果拥有此授权的国家/地区的某人不使网站可访问，会发生什么？
如果是这样，如果拥有此授权的国家/如果网站无法访问，政府可以删除或阻止该 IP 吗？
政府如何知道是否有网站无法访问？他们会检查每个网站吗？
只有造成网站无法访问的个人/公司才会收到政府的通知吗？
为什么有这么多无障碍指南——WACG 1、WCAG 2.0、DDA、Section 508 等？如果全世界都遵循 W3C 的 XHTML 和 CSS，那么为什么有些国家制定了自己的指南？
为什么有
Is it mandatory in some countries to make all websites accessible?
If so, what would happen if someone in country with this mandate does not make a website accessible?
Can the government remove or block the IP if the site is not accessible?
How could the government know if any website is not accessible? Do they check every single website?
Does only the people/company who make the inaccessible site get any notice from the government?
Why are there so many accessibility guidelines -- WACG 1, WCAG 2.0, DDA, Section 508, etc.? If the whole world follows W3C for XHTML and CSS, then why have some countries made their own guidelines?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（5）
是的，特别是英国、爱尔兰和澳大利亚。
这是为了遵守防止歧视残疾人的立法。虽然这被视为或可能被视为一种负担，但我发现将其视为扩大受众、消费者或用户群会有所帮助。
作为一项法律要求，意味着法院能够/将能够根据其对当地法律的解释实施制裁，这可能涉及强制遵守法律、经济处罚（罚款等）或其他惩罚，直到遵守法律为止。已确立的。
这取决于哪个政府以及法律中写入的具体细节。他们似乎不太可能因为不遵守无障碍立法而阻止该网站。尽管我因居住地（英国）而存在偏见，但似乎更有可能通过司法系统寻求赔偿。
在英国，投诉似乎是由无法成功使用/访问网站或服务的残疾用户提出的。这些投诉可能会提交给法院系统，见上文。
更有可能的是，用户在向法院提起诉讼之前会直接通知网站所有者，以便给您/网站所有者一个道歉的机会（永远不要低估真诚道歉的力量）并增强网站。
我想，这就是为什么这不一定是提问的好地方，业主会收到通知。然而，作为网站开发人员，您很可能很快就会收到网站所有者的投诉，因为您制作/设计了网站。但法律责任负担可能取决于您受雇/签订合同的合同。
如果您认为可访问性会给自己增加不应有的负担，那么始终值得向客户说明增加遵守可访问性要求的成本，并告诉他们这些要求所依据的具体法律。
但是，为此，您需要咨询律师。
因为所有法律都是在当地制定的，或者在某些情况下是通过条约在国际上制定的。 W3C 可以提出建议和指导方针，但幸运的是，不遵守 CSS2.1 并不违法。然而，在英国，不遵守 DDA（残疾歧视法）是违法的。
以上所有内容并非合格法律代表或律师的建议。 如需具体建议，请咨询在您的客户所在国家/地区或您的网站/产品可访问的国家/地区执业的律师。
这意味着来自英国的律师可以提供咨询服务。英国地方政府网站，对于德国权威网站来说，当然意味着德国律师的服务。
我不能说出具体的要求，因为我不是律师。然而，快速谷歌会出现以下网页，似乎可以解决这个问题： http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friend-resources /web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml
解释链接页面：
我的理解是，所有向公众提供服务的网站都必须根据 DDA 条款进行访问。这包括政府网站，还包括家庭购物网站（例如，Sainsbury's、Asda、Tesco's 等）以及皇家邮政或电影票预订网站。
我认为，这里的关键术语是“合理措施”。据此，我推测，如果网站/服务每年产生 10000 英镑的收入，并且遵守可访问性的成本将超过 10000 英镑，那么您可以说它超出了合规性的任何合理努力/成本。
然而，这就是渐进增强在 Javascript 和 CSS 中流行的原因。如果该服务在最基本的情况下是可访问的，那么可以使用 Javascript 和 CSS 使其变得更漂亮、更闪亮（无论这对您意味着什么），但当 JS 或 CSS 被禁用时，它应该降级回功能性 UI。在这种情况下，该网站是合规的，但残疾人可能没有同样闪亮的移动按钮。
可访问性意味着他们必须能够在没有不合理困难的情况下访问服务/网站。这并不意味着网站的外观/行为必须完全相同。
直接引用链接页面：
Yes, particularly the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
This is in order to comply with legislation that prevents discrimination against disabled people. While this is, or can be, seen as a burden I find it helps to think of it as widening your audience, consumer or user-base.
Being a legal requirement means that a court is/will be able to impose sanctions, depending on their interpretation of the local laws, that might involve enforced compliance with the laws, a financial penalty (fines, etc) or some other punishment until compliance is established.
That depends on which government and the specifics written into the laws. It seems unlikely that they would block the website because of non-compliance with accessibility legislation. It seems far more likely, though I am biased because of where I live (the United Kingdom), that reparations would be sought through the judicial system.
In the United Kingdom it seems that complaints would be brought by disabled users that are prevented from successfully using/accessing the site or service. These complaints would likely be taken to the court system, see above.
It is even more likely that the user would inform the owner of the website directly, before bringing a complaint to court, in order to give you/the owners a chance to apologise (never underestimate the power of a sincere apology) and enhance the site.
I would imagine, and this is why this isn't necessarily a great place to ask the question, that the owners would be notified. It is, however, quite likely that, as the site developer, you would quickly receive complaints from the owner of the site since you made it/designed it. But the legal burden of responsibility is likely to depend upon the contract under which you were employed/contracted.
If you feel that accessibility would add an undue burden upon yourself, it's always worth specifying to the client the costs of adding compliance with accessibility requirements, and telling them of the specific laws under which they are requirements.
But, for this, you need to speak to a lawyer.
Because all laws are set locally, or, in some cases, internationally via treaties. The W3C can make suggestions and guidelines, but it is not, thankfully for IE, illegal not to comply with CSS2.1. It is, however, illegal not to comply with the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) in the United Kingdom.
All the above is not the advice of a qualified legal representative, or counsel. For specific advice consult a lawyer who practices the law in the country/region in which your client is based, or in which your website/product will accessible.
This would imply a lawyer from the United Kingdom for a British local government website, for a German authority website it would, of course, imply the services of a lawyer from Germany.
I can't speak as to the exact requirements, since I'm not a lawyer. However a quick Google turns up the following web-page that seems to address this question: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml
To paraphrase the linked page:
I read this to mean that all websites that provide a service to the public are required to be accessible under the terms of the DDA. This would include Government websites, but also home-shopping websites (from, for example, Sainsbury's, Asda, Tesco's, etc) and the Royal Mail or cinema ticket-reservation sites.
The key term here, I think, is 'reasonable steps.' I presume, from this, that if the website/service generates an income of £10000 per annum, and the cost of compliance with accessibility would be in excess of £10000 then you could argue that it exceeded any reasonable effort/cost to become compliant.
However, this is the reason that progressive enhancement is popular in Javascript and CSS. If the service, at its most basic, is accessible then Javascript and CSS can be used to make it prettier and shinier (whatever that means to you), but it should degrade back to a functional UI when JS or CSS are disabled. In this situation the site is compliant, but a disabled person might not have the same shiny, moving buttons.
Accessibility means that they must be able to access the service/site without unreasonable difficulty. It does not mean that the site has to look/behave exactly the same.
A direct quote from the linked page:
除了以上答案之外：
W3C 有一个页面列出了不同国家/地区的相关法律，包括相关法律的链接（但通常采用该国家/地区的语言）：
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
In addition to above answers:
The W3C has a page listing relevant laws in different countries, including links to the relevant laws (often in the language of that country though):
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
正如我所说，一般来说很难回答。我想您会得到一个特定于国家/地区的答案列表 - 也许将其设为社区 Wiki 是个好主意。
对于德国，根据维基百科和其他来源：
自 2006 年起，德国联邦行政机构新建的网站必须通过法律进行访问。可访问性准则在名为 BITV（德语文本 此处）。 BITV 非常严格地遵循 WCAG 1.0 准则。
该国的十六个州（“Länder”）也有类似的法律。
许多政府和欧盟倡议以及私人倡议（如 BIENE 奖（仅限德语）。
据我所知，目前没有计划强制执行非政府网站的可访问性。
至于为什么各国要实施自己的指导方针，除其他外，语言当然是一个问题：要将指导方针写入法律，您需要用您的母语编写指导方针，并由律师进行双重检查。
As I said, it's very hard to answer in general. I guess you will be getting a list of answers specific to countries - maybe a good idea to make it Community Wiki.
For Germany, according to Wikipedia and other sources:
Newly built web sites of federal administrative bodies in Germany have to be accessible by law since 2006. The accessibility guidelines are defined in a directive named BITV (german text here). BITV follows the WCAG 1.0 Guidelines very closely.
Similar laws exist for the country's sixteen states ("Länder").
The creation of accessible web sites is encouraged by a number of government and EU initiatives and private initiatives like the BIENE Award (German only).
To my knowledge, no plans to enforce accessibility in non-government websites exist at this time.
As to why countries implement their own guidelines, among other things, language certainly is an issue: To put guidelines into a law, you need the guidelines in your native language, double-checked by lawyers.
有一个 ISO 标准 ISO 23026，用于网站工程和网站生命周期管理的推荐实践，并且该标准不会因国家/地区特定指南而异。该标准还包括有关网站可访问性的条款。该标准涉及网站可访问性、可用性和安全性等指南。
There is an ISO standard, ISO 23026 for reccomended practices for website engineering and website lifecycle management and this does not vary for country specific guidelines. This std includes clauses for website accessibility as well. This standard touches upon guidelines for website accessibility, usability and security, etc.
就这一点而言（假设“DDA”指的是英国的《残疾歧视法案》），该法案不包含任何特别关于网络可访问性的指导方针。
它对公司提出了向残疾和非残疾客户提供同等服务的法律要求，并且该要求像任何其他服务一样适用于网站。
但该法案本身并不算是另一套指导方针。
我相信第 508 节基于 WCAG 1，并且几乎与 WCAG 1 相同。
只剩下 WCAG 1 和 2，两者都来自 W3C，并且版本 2 现在取代了版本 1。所以实际上只有一套准则，除非你还有更多的例子。
Just on this point (and assuming “DDA” refers to the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act), the Act doesn’t contain any guidelines on web accessibility in particular.
It makes a legal requirement for companies to provide equivalent service to disabled and non-disabled customers, and that requirement applies to websites just like any other service.
But the Act doesn’t count as another set of guidelines in itself.
I believe Section 508 was based on, and is almost identical to, WCAG 1.
That just leaves WCAG 1 and 2, both of which are from the W3C, and version 2 now supersedes version 1. So there’s actually just one set of guidelines, unless you’ve got any more examples.