Mark Pilgrim noticed that a judge decided that Southwest Airlines does not need to make its website blind-friendly.
"In this day and age, Web sites are one of the most significant public faces of any organization," said [WAI director Judy] Brewer in a statement. "Any business that pretends otherwise has cut off its nose to spite its face--not only for their loss of millions of potential customers with disabilities, but loss of users of mobile phones, PDAs and other devices best supported by accessible Web design."According to Mark, the decision used the flimsiest of reasoning to justify the decision that the ADA doesn't apply to private websites. Yet with all of the benefits that come from a modicum of time, effort and money invested, companies like Southwest still continue to assert their right to be sub-par.
Eastwood's suggestion for a 90-day compliance window (which I don't think has been adopted yet), is right on the money and would put a stop to a lot of this nonsense, I think.
As for websites, I wholeheartedly agree with this decision. I couldn't be happier. Maybe that sounds cold, but I'm sick and tired of lawsuits in this country. I'm already aware of some European drug companies who refuse to put their drugs out on the market here in the US for fear of lawsuits. I think we need to adopt the Australian system - you lose, you pay.
Good grief
delegatrix on 2002-10-24T01:52:05
This decision was based on the notion that the web site could not be defined as a public place as defined by the ADA, legislation passed in *1990*. Courts in other similar cases have sided with plaintifs, such as in the class action suit against the Atlanta Transit (MARTA) authority.Clearly the case law is emerging in this area and perhaps the ADA will be amended to include wording similar to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act which specifically addresses the accessibility of electronic information supplied by the US federal government.
The problem of accomodation with web sites arises when access to the site, for example an ecommerce site, provides different rates and incentives as other forms of contact with the company. In e-commerce sites, it's in the business' own interest to make the site as accessible as possible. The effort required is really not that great. Most accomodations have cross-over affects that benefit unintended audience. How many mothers with strollers benefit from curb cuts? Well, digital curb cuts have the same effect.
The disabled community isn't filing frivolous suits. Efforts are made to work through standards and education to get the point across. Obviously, there are still those who refuse to let everyone play.
I hope you never join the tens of millions of Americans (and others world-wide) who have a disability that would require assistive technology. I hope you don't suffer a stroke, get Parkinson's, lose your eye sight, have poor vision as you get older, or lose a limb. If you do have such a disability now, I'm glad you're able to access all the sites you need to now without any apparent difficulty.
Standards
gizmo_mathboy on 2002-10-24T03:49:06
Accessability is a good thing. However, if it is legislated what is the standard? Suppose an offending site does a quick and dirty change to be more accessible to those with disabilities. However, the layout/UI/etc just plain sucks and isn't very usable. Is the site still in violation?
Can there be a legislated minimum? What is it?
Creating a usable site for those without disabilities in difficult and without standards.
Just some thoughts that jumped to my little brain.Re:Standards
delegatrix on 2002-10-24T12:59:20
Yes, I agree that legislation in this area is difficult and sometimes misguided. I can, for example, create a site that adheres to Section 508 standards yet is inaccessible, let alone unusable. For one thing, it's impossible to account for all disabilities that can hinder web access.But Section 508 has had positive effects. First, companies are taking measures to enhance accessibility of software. Next, developers are even more aware of techniques that enhance the accessibility of their sites. Finally, state and local governments are following suit and instituting guidelines for their sites. All this further opens access to e-government for all people.
In the Open Source world, we complain when documents are made available in proprietary formats that require specific software or platforms to access the information. We ask that people use open standards for information exchange. Accessibility for persons with disabilities is very similar. We ask that people build sites according to standards which are used by assistive technology to make those site accessible.
Re:Standards
jdavidb on 2002-10-24T17:41:07
In the Open Source world, we complain when documents are made available in proprietary formats that require specific software or platforms to access the information. We ask that people use open standards for information exchange.
Yes, but I'm not looking to have that mandated by law for private organizations. Okay, some people are, but I'm not.
:) Re:Good grief
djberg96 on 2002-10-24T14:00:15
I hope you never join the tens of millions of Americans (and others world-wide) who have a disability that would require assistive technology. I hope you don't suffer a stroke, get Parkinson's, lose your eye sight, have poor vision as you get older, or lose a limb. If you do have such a disability now, I'm glad you're able to access all the sites you need to now without any apparent difficulty.If I ever do become disabled, my first task will be to find your company and sue it for "counter tops too high", or perhaps I'll bring a measuring tape and sue "handicapped parking signs not spaced properly". Easy quarter-mil.
Do you think these lawsuits have no effect? Wrong. They raise insurance rates for everyone. My heart bleeds.
Re:Good grief
ziggy on 2002-10-24T14:51:57
I'll spare you the trouble:If I ever do become disabled, my first task will be to find your company and sue it for "counter tops too high", or perhaps I'll bring a measuring tape and sue "handicapped parking signs not spaced properly". Easy quarter-mil.So much for your "quarter mill".US Department of Commerce
Washington, DCRegarding accessible websites, all we're talking about is a few alt tags and an occasional table summary. If "re-engineering" a website to add alt tags and table summaries takes millions of dollars and paralyzes your development team, then you're obviously doing something wrong with the way you're building a website. And you're obviously not using Perl effectively, either.Do you think these lawsuits have no effect? Wrong. They raise insurance rates for everyone. My heart bleeds.;-) I'm more concerned with all of the time and money that's spent justifying corporate ignorance and shortsightedness than understanding the issues and actually assessing the costs and benefits of website accessability.
Re:Good grief
jdavidb on 2002-10-24T17:43:03
If "re-engineering" a website to add alt tags and table summaries takes millions of dollars and paralyzes your development team, then you're obviously doing something wrong with the way you're building a website. And you're obviously not using Perl effectively, either.
;-) Very, very true.
Re:Good grief
delegatrix on 2002-10-24T17:07:00
You really know very little about this subject. First off, my company is not covered by the ADA. Second, most ADA complaints are successfully adressed with mediation. Third, the ADA does not allow for monetary settlements unless the suit is brought about by the Department of Justice.Don't go spending your 'quarter-mil' so fast.
