Slashdot Mirror
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)."
This why html standards exist. XHTML requires all img tags to have alt="" attributes, which several images on the southwest web page do NOT have. These images seem to be the only links to any other functions on the first page.
That's what standards are for.
Truth be told, if the browser makers and page designers would get off their collective rears and support the standards right, there wouldn't even be a need for screen readers. You'd be surprised at just what HTML and CSS can do for layout; they far surpass anything tables can do, in a browser that actually knows what it's doing. And yet, if you structure your text in a sane, structural manner, an aural browser won't even need to read the screen; it can just speak the text outright. There's even a section of CSS which can be used to alter voice, position, and other aspects of sound.
Luckily, the browser makers are finally starting to get things right, even if they're four years late. Perhaps eventually the Web will recover from the bastardization of HTML that came with the advent of 4.x browsers and table-based layouts. The sooner this happens, the better for designers, users, and everyone else.
Bullshit. Extortion? Do you really know what it takes to be compliant? Not too much. I asked for and received an ADA manual last time I was renovating my office (gov't sent one without charge) and TOLD my employeer we were going to be ADA compliant even if it bankrupted up (not likely, we are a small department in a much larger organization).
What did it take? We ordered a few signs that had braile on them, made sure the aisleways were wide enough to accomodate a wheel chair and got a few tables that were articulating to accomidate the wheelchairs to get under them. Computer terminals were made it be sure that they had the standard ADA compliant software on them (Windows and Macs come with most of this and most of these folks know how to activate them if they ask).
Get the problem fixed before hand and you won't have to worry about someone suing you. All in all, it cost me about a grand for the extra equipment AND a disabilities advocate was able to meet with me to make sure we were in compliance as much as possible for free. Since doing this 3 years ago, I've had to accomodate 2 people. Were they worth the $500 a piece that it cost me? Probably not from a profit centered notion, BUT it was money well spent.
Get the shit done and don't put it off as something to do later, and you won't get sued. If you do and you are sued later, you've made a good faith effort to try to be accomodating. You can't please everyone and you can't expect every situation to be convered but you can try your best.
clif
Not true. The ADA specifically excludes damages. The most someone can legally get out of an ADA suit is correction of the barrier. Nowhere in the ADA will you find that an "attorney can bill for $275". If your lawyer told you that, you need to find a new lawyer.
I believe the ADA applies to companies with > 15 employees.
Ceci n'est pas un post
That would suit me fine. Those features on a website that are most likely to break screen readers tend to be the exact same features that are the most annoying, unnecessary and browser incompatible.
[toptail.gif] [1x1.gif] [reservations_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif]
[schedules_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif] [fares_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif]
[click_n_save_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif] [travel_center_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif]
[rapid_rewards_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif] [endmenu.gif]
Granted, this guy might be money-hungry. However, previous cases show that the companies that were sued (AOL in particular) settle by making their site accessbile to screen readers. In all likely hood, that is all this guy wants. That's all any blind person wants.
The ADA doesn't allow for any monetary damages. Under the ADA, you can only sue to force compliance.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Actually, there's been a braille edition of Playboy available since at least 1970. At least Playboy says so.
When I went through the site, I couldn't find any pages with alt tags at all. Perhaps we're looking at different pages?
How hard is it to run every page through an html validator?
The company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize long term profits while staying true to the company charter. Management, when it fails to do that (and I think they are in this case) is not just serving customers poorly but their shareholders as well.
Full text of the act -- now if only the DOJ would actually learn HTML and/or writing skills.
"Heh, we're so web-savvy, we just dumped 160Kb of unformatted crap on our website"
Companies that want to make their sites more accessible, but don't want to build their own standards could always adopt the 508 standards and perhaps pick up some legal cover in the process.
Most of the rules are basic. It does hamstring you out of some of the more sexy things (flash is difficult) but it also keeps you true (you tend not to waste taxpayer's $$$ having to make silly flash intros).
If you have diehard GUI html designers in your shop, there are several plug-ins for Dreamweaver (and others) that force the code to be 508 compliant. Vi can write 508 code just fine.
Many COTS vendors now also have 508 compliant versions of their s/w, otherwise they can't sell to government.
To learn more, good place to start is the Section 508 homepage.
No, following W3 standards does not guarantee ADA compliance. It is still very possible to use valid HTML and having an end result of tag-soup. Yeah, alt attributes are mandatory as part of the html spec - that's an accessibility plus, but things like table summaries, cell identifiers and headers, skip to content links are not part of the mandatory HTML recommendation.
On the whole, you have a _much_ better chance of meeting ADA compliance with a standards compatible website. W3 compliance is only a milestone along the journey of accessible websites.
HTML Validators only check that your HTML validates according to the HTML Recommendation. It does not test accessibility requirements that are not part of the HTML recommendation.
There are tools for testing the accessibility of a website. One of the best I've come across is Accessibility Valet - a much better tool than Bobby