Blind User Sues Southwest Over Web Site, Cites ADA

scubacuda writes "According to Law.com, Robert Gumson, a blind man who uses a program that converts website content into speech, is suing Southwest Airlines (with the help of Miami Beach, FL-based Access Now) for its website being incompatible with his screen-reader program. The case has been filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act under the untested legal theory that ADA provisions on the accessibility of public accommodations to the disabled apply to Internet Web sites just as they do to brick-and-mortar facilities like movie theaters and department stores. There have been previous lawsuits alleging that the ADA applies to the Internet, but all have settled without a ruling on the merits: 1999 the National Federation of the Blind sued AOL alleging its service was inaccessible to blind users (AOL agreed to make its sites compatible with screen reader technology); over the past two years, Access Now has sued Barnes & Noble and Claire's Stores for maintaining Web sites that allegedly violated the ADA (both settled)."

Comments

Wrong on two counts

[Fastball]

First, Southwest Airlines is a private company. They can run their web site any way they see fit. Or, they don't have to have one. We're talking about a web site, something so often confused for a currency mint. Web sites are the cost of doing business, a necessary evil really, and as such, they cannot be mandated like ramps and elevators.

Second, unlike entry into a building, there are alternative airlines. No one said he had to fly Southwest. Crikey!

Hell, assume I'm completely wrong. Does this mean anyone with a web site has to be in compliance with this cat's text-to-speech converter? While noble, this complaint has no business in the legal system. What happens next? Money changes hands? If this guy wants to affect change and get what he wants, he should 1) write a letter to Southwest explaining his problem, 2) write his congresscritter explaining his problem, and/or 3) fly with somebody who meets his accessibility needs.

Re:Alternative accessibility

[dpt]

Does every avenue have to be available to every person, no matter what the disability?

Yes, when it's designed for maximum accessability in the first place and is only fucked up by idiots. I applaud this and any similar actions, as it is a kind of "fuckwit tax" on incompetent ex-dotcommers who like "Flash" and other similar crap.

Re:Get a grip

[Jucius Maximus]

"It is retarded to be suing over this. Not to be insensitive to disabled people..." [emphasis mine]

I feel I must catch you on this: You are being insensitive to disabled people.

And to respond to your post, how would you feel if the airline on which you wanted to travel excluded all browsers except MSIE (which happens to have a 90%+ majority)? I guess not...

Re:Human Rights

[Blkdeath]

Many Asian companies will only hire Asians (preference to family members), partly because their upbringing teaches them to stick together. If my upbringing taught me to stick together with white people in the same fashion, I'd be labelled as a racist.

All in all, all I have to say is {sigh}

pff.

[Fuzzums]

sue the speachsoftware makers for making products that aren't able to read a website.

should we now put disclaimers for everything on everything? stupidity rules!

[disclaimer. you're only meant to read this post if it's meant for you]