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)."
what if I write a website that shows one thing, but spits out text telling the blind person something else. Namely, what if I setup blindpeoplehelp.com and it have pictures of chicks with dicks? can't wait to see the blind person in the library with this one.
Ok, tell me this - where do you draw the line between high traffic commercial websites, and (for instance), mine?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If the company doesn't cater to your needs then they don't need your business.
Too many people think suing is the answer to everything.
This would be like me walking into Target (or any other store) and suing them because they don't sell XL-Tall shirts that will fit me.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
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.
Does this mean I am going to go out and sue all glove makers because they don't make a right hand glove with no thumb? No. That is plain stupid. The term disability means, acording to Dictionary.com ...
2. A disadvantage or deficiency,
3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.
Why can we not accept that there are things that we cannot do and not sue others while pretending it is someone else's fault that we have a disability.
Are these (the ADA) the people that made it so that there is Brail on Drive up ATM machines?
Only in Lake Wobiegon (sp?) is everyone above average...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
I just have one thing to say to people whose screen reader software can't read this post and are offended enough to sue:
er....
Oh wait, nevermind.
This strikes me as a matter of simple human rights. Does anyone have the right to force a company to spend money on a minority, or accept customers they wouldn't otherwise accept? I don't believe they do.
If the minority (in this case, the blind) are sufficiently profitable as customers, it's likely the company will spend the time and money to cater for them. Or, perhaps, the owner(s) of the company feel that their public image would be best served by catering to the minority. Or maybe they respect the effort many blind people make to achieve their goals, and decide to assist them.
Either way, it's the choice of the company - what right has any individual or group (including the State) to force a company to accept customers they don't want?
A lot of people assume that the ADA is a farce designed to quiet the disgruntled whinings of mentally or physically disabled people. It's a bone tossed to them in much the same way that senior citezens get discounts and prefferential treatment in businesses. It's annoying for other customers and frequently inconvenient.
After all, how many handicapped parking places does the mall need?
What people who think that this is a joke fail to consider, however, is the fact that without the ADA in place, businesses can and will discriminate against handicapped people.
Consider for a second your state's major university. We'll use the University of Texas for an example, because I'm familiar with it. Most of the buildings were constructed in the first half of the twentieth century. Most of the multi-story buildings have elevators, but not all of them. During class-time, the elevators are so full that if you want to get to class on time, you have to use the stairs. Remember that Austin is very hilly. There are stairs everywhere, even for one-story buildings.
Now lets assume that you were in a car wreck with a drunk driver and lost the use of your legs. Despite your new disability you are a smart individual who can get a job that does not require the use of your legs.
Without all those nice wheelchair ramps and wheelchair accessable elevators at the university, you are shit out of luck for actually getting to class... to say nothing of managing to cross the stage when you actually manage to earn your diploma.
We look at wheelchair ramps and other disability accomodations as commonplace. The truth is that very few businesses and schools had them before the ADA forced them to. It may be unthinkable now to descriminate against someone because he's deaf, blind, or crippled, but before the ADA went into effect, nobody thought twice about descriminating against people like that.
The ADA is not a joke.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Opera resizes images with text... the "whole page" is resized, in fact, not just text. Granted, you'll still get bitmapped blocks on image-based text, but it's a step in the right direction...
Finally I have a good excuse for using good 'ol HTML on sites, especially message boards like Marihemp Network Message Boards I run, other than it speeds things up - which in the world of cable and dsl doesn't fly anymore.
:-)
Personally, I think it's high time for companies that have public websites to strive for universal accessibility regardless of browser, etc - I really HATE seeing blurbs such as "MSIE 5+ required", etc on websites - defeats the whole idea of HTML and universal access.
While it's perhaps unrealistic for sites to work with various ancient browsers, a person with a basic browser that supports tables and other basic HTML (say HTML 3.2) should be able to access any publicly *commercial* website without hassles and plugins like flash and pdf - both of which I personally hate...webmasters who use pdf are too damn lazy to type while those who _require_ flash totally misunderstand the concept of HTML and universal accessibility.
End of rant
Ron Bennett
Not to be flamebait or anything, but I think we just have to accept that someone who is blind can never get the full effect out of the web, because you can't cut out the visuals and achieve the same result. It would be like cutting out the images in a movie but wearing headphones describing what you are supposed to see. Hearing what you are supposed to see and seeing it use vastly different sense.
Yes, it sucks to be handicapped. I would imagine blindness is one of the least desirable handicaps, but at some point, we just have to accept the fact that blind people can't effectively surf the web.
Are tickets for Southwest Airlines (at the same price) available via other means? Phone, travel agent, whatever. Yes, they are.
Does every avenue have to be available to every person, no matter what the disability?
If you're blind, use the phone. If you're deaf, read (Web).
Try this "Speak IT" site and install the readers...
Then come back to Slashdot, Highlight this whole discussion and listen...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
I think it's fair to set some reasonable requirements for equal access to information on commercial sites.
For blind people with PCs, this means "just the facts, hold the Flash". That's what I want too, just like I want that great front row parking spot.
I wonder which site will be first to require a special permit to visit the streamlined pages.
On the other hand, if this is successful, it might make people fix many of those sites that break when javascript is turned off, and I'd personally like that quite a bit.
[1] Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea that certain public spaces must be accessable to handicapped people. In particular, I agree that handicapped people must be allowed reasonable access to all government buildings that the general public is allowed access to. What isn't so clear in my mind is that private businesses like restaurants should be required to comply with accessability laws. Personally I think it's certainly in their financial interest to do so, but I disagree with the idea of forcing them to comply by threat of law. In the same way, I don't agree with the idea that a private business like an airline should be forced to change web pages by threat of law. However, they do have what ammounts to a government granted oligopoly, so maybe that would be fair. Of course, that wouldn't be the logic used to justify it, so it would still spill over into places it wouldn't be justified. Sigh.
In their terms and conditions "Southwest Airlines" also state that they forbid "deep linking", using robots to spider their site, or just using any program to get their pages.
In fact, their license seems to forbids the use of any HTTP user agent to "acquire" some of their pages. Beware, by browsing their site you are risking to get sued =).
About time. I used to be a lead web developer at a US public university and was delegated by my director to provide accessability for all regardless of physically handicaps. After a couple years of doing this, developing in this manner became second nature and even as a nonvisually disabled person, I became more and more annoyed by sites that just didn't care.
It amazing me at the lack of professionalism in the web developer community for not addressesing this issue w/o legal being required to. It takes all of 15 minutes to run your site through bobby and the learning curve for meeting the W3C WAI guidelines is low. To not take the little time out of your unimpaired life to make life easier for others amazes me. Especially when 70% of it is just following good web coding practices (eg non-visual cues, alt tags, not using/requiring javascript/flash, using aural spreadsheets, etc etc). People seem to think that you can't design a site not using these items or that their site will be ugly / not satisfy the client. Both are wrong. Often you can use nice visual ques AND provide a seperate or alternate site for visually impaired people. Or just layout your site so even without visual ques, it is still usable. They aren't asking for amazing aural sites, they are asking for FUNCTIONAL aural sites. As for extra cost and time you spend designing these feature, bet that time is a hell of a lot cheaper that the multimillion dollar lawsuit you can/might get slapped with.
Trying surfing the net with lynx for an entire day, see usable it is. After thinking how bad that is, try downloading / buying your favorite aural browser for a real eye opener. Its not pretty. Now try doing that your whole life.
De Oppresso Liber
Fourteen.
Disco Stu was talkin' to you.
I can't see, hear, or feel anything with my fingertips.
[Ed. I am actually a trained monkey typing this for my master. Man those bathroom monkeys don't know how good they have it. I'd like to see them have to keep up with Slashdot]
Why do these people feel the need to reach for their lawyers before even using common sense? What on earth is the point of voice-accessible websites for an airline when virtually ALL airlines provide 24-hour a day toll-free phone numbers where you can talk to a real person and/or use an automated system to do everything you can do on the Web?
I know that some airlines charge more for reservations not made online, but that could easily be waived for the disabled if they didn't have another option. It just seems nuts to me to try to force a company to spend millions of dollars that will be passed on to all the other customers for something that is a non-problem. The airlines already have voice information - on the original voice communicator - the PHONE! ;)
I'd be thinking this is a good time for one of Southwest's competitors (are there any? NB: I'm not a yank) to do a quick hack and start offering a site accessible to the blind...
'sapientia potestas est'
OK, you've read that little raint, so what's the second bird? I am getting very tired of websites that use flash and images for everything on the page. They take a long time to load, they're slower, you can't copy text from them, and you can't view them is text-only browsers. Many of these sites don't even look right on moderatly new browsers (like the 3.x and 4.x serires of IE). Lawsuits to benefit a small group of people can be good for everyone sometimes.
PS, this is all IMHO. I don't mean to offend anyone with this. Somethimes these things can be touchy subjects. Blah blah blah...
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
A couple of years ago, when I was in production support, I had to respond to our VP level concerning complaints from our clients who could not use our site with the standard screen readers. This was a novel issue to me at the time and I quickly familiarized myself with screen reader technology and the W3C's accessibility quidelines.
I suggested that it would not be a terribly huge undertaking to bring our site into a minimum level of compliance. Nope, this was deemed too costly relative to the small segment of our clientele who were disabled. Failing that, I suggested that we could simply ensure that all new development going forward implemented the accessibiltiy guidelines.
Well, two years and a new redesign later, and this still hasn't been implemented. I mean, how hard is it to include accessibility in the business requirements for the new development being farmed out?
Here's a web app that validates a URL against the W3C's accessibiltiy guidelines.Most sites will generate a ton of errors, but you'll also notice that this accessibility boils down to simple things like using *correct* html, making sure you supply text in alt and title tags, etc.
I'm not certain, but I think accessibility concerns was a reason that has caused the W3C to want to deprecate the use of framesets: screenreaders have a hell of a time trying to present essentially two different documents at the same time with any level of coherance.
All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. - Johann Sebastian Bach
I don't know how the law is written, but the technology problems to handle in such a case are highly nontrivial.
Consider. We have plenty of trouble now with websites which can only be viewed in one browser. This is visual display, mind you, which the vast majority of browsers are built to do by default. We can't even follow the standards well enough to handle the default access method well.
Now, we add a whole new method of content rendering. We can't even impliment the main standards properly. How do we plan to ensure that an audio interface can successfully read a website, as well? Keep in mind that this is not what the web was originally designed to handle.
Then there is the problem of economnic considerations - without a simple standard in widespread use, implimenting an audio interface becomes costly. It is desirable for handicapped people to be able to participate, but statistically they represent a fraction of the viewership. There won't be money in it, so companies aren't going to be happy about it. This will inevitably show up in the final result.
Finally, and this is perhaps the most difficult point - how do we update the truly staggering amount of content already out there, much if unskillfully written and poorly maintained in the first place?
Total access is a good goal, but the technological tools just aren't robust enough yet to handle it. The law needs to take that into account - this isn't a matter of adding a ramp, lowering telephones, handicapped parking or other straightforward and easily solved problems. Audio internet is a HARD problem, converting content on the internet is even harder, and it's just not going to be happening in the short term.
In the end I think it is a good one to solve, both for the sake of those who need it and the fact that a more robust audio structure on the internet is likely to have many other benefits, as well. But that kind of work takes years and years. I don't know if the legal system will be able to figure that out.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
no, not all sites *i want to say*.
..and I recon he sues the airline because he feels (somehow) discriminated that he can't use the same public site as you do... to book his ticket.
I recon it's like IRL: that every one should have the same opportunities like the other. Meaning that someone (a disabled, blind in this case) shouldn't somehow be discriminated someway (like not beeing able to access a public place, or site in this case).
From what I know this rule applies here in sweden to all public [access] places...and ends at your home.
Here are a few examples (where it [should] applies): Schools, Banks, any-sort-of-Stations & transportation, postoffice, restaurants, airlines, airports, airplanes, companies (!$ms too), malls, the beach, ya' you get the idea...
I interpret his claim as "all physical public [access] places with internet sites/service should comply by/with ADA".
So you can feel safe you won't don't get sued to have to modify your personal-p00rn site, nope : )
[*hum... wonder how this applies to PlayBoy.com, and the works...*]
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
I wasn't trying to make a spoof banner ad that nailed the ethics of the legal profession, but there ya go.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I use the web when interacting with Southwest because I can get the data I need faster visually than aurally.
If someone's blind, it would seem only fair that southwest has the option of providing them with a dedicated, live concierge to help them with all their questions. That's why they can CALL 1-800-IFLYSWA.
The ADA is intended to make sure that people are not disenfranchised by their disability, and in this case the person is not, since they cn accomplish the same task via a means that SWA has provided for them that is compatable with their abilities. The *only* caveat I would make is that if they show they are blind, they should be able to get the double-points and internet-only fares afforded to those who frequent the site.
This particular lawsuit is as ridiculous as a person in a wheelchair suing for there not being a stair-climing inclinator when there's an elevator down the hall.
I'm all for blind readability on sites without an alternative, but if it's a service operation where you can accomplish tasks via phone, then I believe that that is a solution to the mandated requirements.
Kevin Fox
Check the "Phone rates" versus the "Web rates". Then you may understand why. Hell I book every hotel online then call 5 minutes later to make sure it's in their system (saves around 50%). If you don't think the web is becoming a necessary part of life just try living without it for 1 month. I for example couldn't for 1 day because I make my living developing online systems.
Like a previous poster said, I look back on they days of Netscape 2 with envy. One set of html to follow and little fluff. Oh well, now I just sound like my grandfather.
This just a geek-centric example of the way the concept of rights has shifted from meaning "things the government can't keep you from doing" to "things the government must force other people to do for you."
What people who think that this is a joke fail to consider, however, is the fact that without the ADA in place, businesses can and will discriminate against handicapped people.
What you apparently fail to consider is that wheelchair ramps don't grow on wheelchair ramp trees.
If a disabled person can do a job as well and as cheaply as anyone else, no one will hesitate to hire him. To the extent that the disability keeps the person from being hired, it is either because he would do the job less well, or incur costs (e.g. elevators, bathroom remodelling) which would have to be paid by the consumers and stockholders.
If this is discrimination, it is rational discrimination, making a valid distinction.
I wouldn't hire a waiter with Tourette's, and I wouldn't hire a waiter who was just clumsy.
I wouldn't hire a teacher who was mentally retarded, and I wouldn't hire a teacher who was just plain dumb.
I wouldn't hire a firefighter who was too weak to lift a hose, and I wouldn't hire a firefighter with no arms.
Why should half of those I named be set apart as protected groups, guaranteed jobs in which they will hurt the rest of society more than they help it?
I've been talking about hiring, but this is even more true of ramps, remodelings, etc. that are mandated merely for the benefit of disabled customers- those in movie theaters, for instance. If the benefit to the disabled of using those ramps is greater than the cost of building the ramp, it will be worth the theater's trouble to build the ramp, because the disabled customers will be willing to pay enough in tickets to cover the ramp's price. If not, why does the smaller benefit to disabled customers trump the greater cost to able-bodied customers?
Ah... Ever read "Harrison Bergeron"?
Things like this are why there's hostility toward the ADA and those pushing it. It's also why there's a move afoot to amend the ADA to allow businesses 90 days to bring themselves into compliance when there's a complaint, before a suit can be filed. Naturally, the plaintiff's bar thinks this is a bad idea.
How would porn sites comply with this??
Porn in braille...is there such a thing?
Ron
"Does this mean I am going to go out and sue all glove makers because they don't make a right hand glove with no thumb? No. That is plain stupid."
Yes, that would be plain stupid. It would also be irrelevant to the topic at hand.
A person with a disability in our nation has a right to access public and publicly provided services under the ADA.
This is about preventing someone from making use out of a given service, a service mind you that they are fully capable of receiving, because of their disability.
Your example is incorrect. You can still wear and purchase the glove. If however (entirely hypothetical situation) the glove makers required that you give a thumb print before the purchase then there would be grounds to sue.
"The term disability means, acording to Dictionary.com [dictionary.com]
2. A disadvantage or deficiency,
3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.
Why can we not accept that there are things that we cannot do and not sue others while pretending it is someone else's fault that we have a disability. "
Again. We do accept there are things that some can't do.
What we don't accept is that there are things that someone *could* do, but isn't able to gain access to because the service is provided in a way that hampers on their disability.
"Are these (the ADA) the people that made it so that there is Brail on Drive up ATM machines?"
No. I suspect that the banks likely did that. As the component parts for one ATM fits for another (and other parts too), and its cheaper to just make one key set for all ATMs, than it is to make one for the blind, and one for everyone else.
For the record I know of one person who uses a local ATM and happens to also be blind.
I'm amazed at most of the comments.
Before people flame the ADA and access to the web for the blind, they should remember that they too could become blind someday.
The web and HTML were created to make information _more_ accessible to people, not less. Good coding for the web is supposed to ensure that people with _any_ type of browser can get your content, not just people with IE+flash. It's not very hard to make your sight accessible for the blind -- just use well-formed HTML or the new flash accessibility extensions.
The more accessible the web is for all of us, the better we all are.
He is being denied access to a store/site because he is blind
This is fairly stongly worded. You might want to s/denied/not able to attain, because there is no active attempt to disallow entry to the site. The company hasn't made provisions for this special group
But, you could also spin it off the be the fault of the screen-reader. One could state that the company designing the screen-reader product did not make it work with the increasing graphic standard, perhaps by adding an advanced OCR, etc. Maybe a brail-reader based on color depth.
It's fine to say that disabled individuals are not able to use this site and are losing out. But this could set a bad precedent making all companies with graphical type sites liable. How many major sites now use flash, can the screen reader translate that? It would also suck if this set a precedent so that even my little site had at to conform to blind-compatible standards (I do, however, try to use text when possible for lynx compatibility etc)
The major point is, while much information is being presented in a textual format, the internet is moving towards towards a more visually stimulating form of presentation. People with vision impairment are going to lose out a lot from this, but not everybody will think to account for all such special cases, especially when gearing towards a more flashy and potentially better selling presentation.
Can we really expect that text-based support is going to be around forever? In a decade, will an increasingly visual medium be forced to retain non-visual support?
A lot of people will probably be tempted to say "I'm sorry, I understand your loss but why should it also be mine." It's in a way a selfish attitude, but it's also somewhat logical in current society.
Well, time to go back to text-based internet - phorm
Those bastards at SouthWest don't hire visually impaired pilots either.
OK, let me throw in my two cents both from the perspective of a blind web surfer and a blind website designer. I actually am a user of the technology mentioned in the article, and yes, some web sites can be extreemly difficult to surf. /. itself isn't the easiest in its default state, although it is usable and making some customizations in user preferences does help a lot. From my experience on the whole, if a web site sticks rather strictly to HTML, CSS and the other standards, they're OK. Problem is, very few sites do. An even worse problem is many web designers design their sites using Dreamweaver or some other graphical tool. This seperates them from the HTML itself, and many times they don't know what's going on under the hood. The common mantra among web designers I've noticed is "if it looks right, its right." It is very frustrating running into one of these sites, and the unfortunate thing is, there are many of them.
Now that I've addressed the technical issues, let's move on to some of the other things that I've been reading about in this thread. I tend to aggree with the common conseption around here that lawsuites are way over used, and many people tend to be way too sue happy, thinking that will solve their problems. But let me ask, in a situation like this, what would you have done? I'm sure this blind person did try to contact the web designer. In fact, as blind people we are instructed to do just that right away when we encounter an inaccessible site. Problem is, very few web designers listen to us. I'm not sure if its intentional, but many of them just do not understand how we surf the web, and are probably under the impression that they have to go way out of their way to modify their pages for a screen reader. Refer to what I said above, that if a page is designed properly, nine times out of ten it will work just fine. OK, so contacting the web designer yeilds no response, so what next? Sometimes there is no other way to get a business to listen other than through its wallet. Very sad, dispicable, but true.
So, again what is he to do? Assuming this person had contacted Southwest's webmasters (which as I said they should have,) what would you do next? And don't say just not use there services. There aren't enough blind people who have access to the internet in the first place to make it make a difference, and that's just like saying that blacks should just not frequent the businesses that discriminate against them. We all have a right to make use of public services, be them brick and morder or online. And considering how relatively little modification it takes to make a web site accessible (following standards is not hard,) I think that this person may very well have a case against Southwest.
Interesting question...could cut either way...
Perhaps companies could avoid the ADA website issue by simply not having a website...but then again, some companies might be sued for not having a website - for example on the grounds that their physical store, etc is too far away or whatever.
It is retarded to be protesting over this. Not to ve insensitive to black people, but if you are black and want to get a drink of water, go to the damned coloured fountain and drink there. You can do everything at the coloured fountain that you can at the whites fountain. If you are really this angry about Southwest's white fountain not being usable to blacks, don't give them your business. There are plenty of other airlines with fountains out there.
But then, nobody on slashdot is old enough to remember those days.
Actually no. The logic is that the government can regulate commerce. For example, if you had a coal mine where black lung is a danger to the workers, the government might step in and require you to provide masks, etc. so as to not endanger them. While they might respect your right to mine coal, it might not be in your best interests to do so safely, but the government has got a legitimate interest in safety. For example government response in the case of epidemics.
For various practical reasons in the US, the federal government has broad authority over interstate commerce. And the courts have defined that to be extremely expansive. If blind people cannot be served, then this has an effect on commerce. It doesn't have to be significant, though it really could be when you consider all instances of this sort of thing going on.
Thus, it's regulable. Calling it slavery is a ridiculous stretch. If that were an even vaguely credible argument, any sort of law could be deemed slavery, for it interferes with someone's desire to do things. Laws punishing criminal trespass do not make slaves of trespassers because they're told where they cannot go.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Didn't George H.W. Bush make a public statement regretting that he ever signed the ADA? I put some key words in to Google but couldn't come up with anything. I for one think things like handicapped parking spaces, building/sidewalk ramps, handicapped restrooms/drinking fountains, public braille signs, and automatic doors are great. But, some of the other stuff trying to be pulled under the ADA (and most definitely this lawsuit) is ridiculous. The guy is gonna need help getting on the plane anyhow, since I doubt he has the floor plans of the airport and plane memorized, so he might as well get someone to help him order the tickets too. Ya gotta have some sympathy for him though because he is missing out on seeing a lot of things, and life is more difficult in general when you're blind (I would guess, although I don't know specifically), so you can't be too negative against him, heh.
Why not convert PDF to HTML before-hand or on the fly - PDFs are a kludge and a bad one at that for most web applications.
I agree that PDF has its uses, such as for sites that post official forms (like the IRS) for people to print out and mail/fax back, etc.
But why do so many sites post mostly text documents in PDF...which require a propreitary reader and is difficult for the visitor to manipulate - such as searching, cut and paste, or translating into another language, etc.
You know, not everything has to be graphics and flash cartoons. I remember the day (God, do I sound old) when all good websites had a plain text link for people with slow modems and vision problems. Hell, I use to browse the Web with lynx!
Normally I don't like lawsuits but if it will force designers to make pages that not only look nice but are usable then I'm all for it.
Why? By the same token, do you believe that they can refuse to accept black passengers? It took a law quite similar to the ADA to compel businesses to serve regardless of race, religion, etc.
Second, unlike entry into a building, there are alternative airlines.
A) What if they all are like that? Does he have to drive? B) Didn't work the last time, when there was a white resturant and a black resturant -- it has an effect on commerce that is regulable. Besides which, it's grossly unfair to force someone to go elsewhere.
But the ADA AFAIK doesn't affect non-commercial entities. Your private home page is fine, in the same way that you don't have to put wheelchair ramps on your house, or let anyone in who wants to. Businesses are typically open to the public; this means the WHOLE public as a rule.
It's a great complaint; I hope that he wins. Besides these kinds of accomodations frequently are helpful to everyone. Those cut-out ramps at street corners (provided they have the bumps) are really handy if you're wheeling stuff around on a handtruck. Everyone likes elevators. I can hear, but I like to have the captions turned on when I watch TV or DVDs.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Your banner add, for a satirical website I'm thinking of doing
I'll credit it to you on the contributions page
...is an airline. They are not a website. The primary business activity of Southwest Airlines is moving people around. They run thier website to make things more convenient for their users, but it is not the only way that they sell tickets. The fact that this fella is blind does not in any way hinder him from flying on southwest airlines, he can probably use the phone.
It would be great if Southwest was compliant, but as far as I am concerned, they could be compliant by adding the following to thier front page: Users unable to navigate this site please call XXX-XXXX-XXXX. And it wouldn't even have to be toll free.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Yes, damnit. If this carries on we might actually have to value content over style! Won't somebody please think of the web designers?
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
It would be nice if you'd make your 3D game accessible. I've often wanted to play Quake with my eyes closed, and it would be nice for some audible clues. For example:
"VISOR AT 3 OCLOCK."
"SARGE RUNS BEHIND THE WALL."
"VISOR SWITCHES TO RAILGUN."
"YOU SHOULD TURN LEFT AND SHOOT NOW."
"SARGE SHOOTS YOU IN THE NUTS WITH THE SHOTGUN."
"TOO LATE."
I think you can see my point.
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
Boy, I am amazed at the paleolithic attitudes present on Slashdot. The ADA is the law of the land, and it's in place for a reason - so that companies and government make 'reasonable accomodation' to handicapped people. Among other things it protects people who might have a minor handicap from getting fired for trivial reasons - for example my wife has fallen arches and requires orthopedic footwear. Since she works in a position that requires contact with the general public, her employer has a rather strict dress code that would normally require that she wear certain types of dress shoes. The ADA protects her from getting fired because she can't wear these types of shoes on the job.
In the case of Southwest Airlines, their web site is a problem because of the use of images for links without alt tags. Is it REALLY such a big deal for Soutwest to put alt tags on these images???? Can you really imagine a software program that is going to be capable of translating an image into it's test equivalent???
Why wouldn't putting alt tags on images just be considered common courtesy???
I was born with a rare condition that prevents me from viewing Flash objects. Can the crack slashdot legal community advise me about how to pursue my lawsuit against the many abusers of Flash?
First, Southwest Airlines is a private company.
NOPE, it is a publicly traded company, listed as LUV on the NYSE.
They can run their web site any way they see fit.
Nope, that's what the ADA act is all about.
Web sites are the cost of doing business, a necessary evil really, and as such, they cannot be mandated like ramps and elevators.
A Building is a "cost of business" also, and you better make sure wheelchair users can access your toilets and second floor.
Second, unlike entry into a building, there are alternative airlines. No one said he had to fly Southwest.
MAYBE: In some cases, SWA is the most frequent airline into some destinations in Texas, and is frequently the cheapest to most destinations. So, if you don't mind paying more, or have less choices about when to travel, I guess you can fly another airline. (That ALSO doesn't have visibility impaired web pages.)
And your whole next paragraph is exactly why we have the ADA. There is a law; this issue has not been dealt with yet, hence the lawsuit; I'm sure his congressman knows about both the issue and the ADA; and the point is that all business websites should meet these standards, but don't (and probably won't until the law is clarified.
Welcome to the U.S. Legal system.
((I won't even go into their website only promotions and doubling their frequent flier credits with web site reservations.)
Crikey!
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
Now we'll have corporations pulling their web sites because there's some person with some disability out there who won't be able to use them, and not providing the service will cost less than settling ADA lawsuits. I certainly feel for someone who's blind, but for crying out loud, couldn't he just use the phone? That doesn't even consider the possibility of having a friend order the tickets--of course, this makes the assumption that someone who would sue over something like this has friends.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Do the banks really keep their UI consistent though?
I know for a fact that in St. Louis, Missouri - my bank (Firstar) has changed around the prompts on their machines numerous times in just the last 6 months or so.
EG. One set of drive-up ATMs has a prompt at the beginning that asks if you'd like English or Spanish. I've never seen this on their ATMs anyplace else in town (and I know this was just recently added to these particular machines). Other times, they seem to play around with enabling and disabling prompts that ask "Would you like a receipt for this transaction?" after your card is inserted, but before you select any other options. They've also made changes to some of their ATMs so they ask if you'd like a deposit envelope, after you tell it you wish to make a deposit. (It used to be, they all just spit out an envelope without asking.)
All of these small changes seem like they'd cause major havock for blind people who had the sequence of prompts memorized.
I was under the impression the law only applied to federal or state web sites.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
This whole handicap compliance thing is getting carried way too far.
I heard a radio interview from a guy in the north east US who owned a small video store. There was a heavy snow and he was barely able to shovel a path to the main door of his store. Needless to say, he did not bother to shovel a path to the side wheelchair ramp, and sure enough the gov Wheelchair Nazi's came by and cited him with a huge penalty, something like 25 grand.
It would have been far cheaper simply to keep the damned shop closed.
I believe in *reasonable* accomodations, but not hellbent expensive ones.
Table-ized A.I.
I believe the ADA applies to companies with > 15 employees.
Ceci n'est pas un post
I couldn't agree more. This guy is just suing to get some money.
He's obviously not too bright picking on an airline business too. I doesn't make much sense suing an industry that's practically going out of business.
Live web cams
Boy, I am amazed at the paleolithic attitudes present on Slashdot.
I'm not amazed. It's exactly what I expected from this lot.
Aren't website's private property? If so, why should we legislate what people have to do with their private property. I mean yeah, the designers ought to make them accessible, but why should the government tell them what they MUST do with it?
Derek Greene
Web sites are primarily designed for a particular, limited audience, in most cases. If someone *chooses* to make their site easily accessible to everyone who comes across it, that's their option -- but it certainly doesn't need to be legislated as mandatory.
That's as ludicrous as saying every author writing a book needs to have it translated and published into every foreign language in common use, so those not speaking English are ensured "equal access" to it!
The fact is, many sites right now are quite browser-dependent, even if they opt not to touch any additional "plug-in" technologies such as Shockwave or RealAudio. If we didn't have Javascript, web sites would be much less useful. (As just one example, I recently found a site that calculated your speedometer error based upon changing your car's tires out with different sizes. If this had to be presented as pure HTML, I suppose we'd be reduced to looking through a huge list or table of every combination, to find relevant data for our particular car and situation. How is that a *better* way to build the site?)
Sure, some of the ".bomb'ers" are out there drawing up poor quality sites, and don't deserve a job designing web pages. That's not what this discussion is really about, however. This is a question of whether we want to let government dictate requirements for every site we build. If this becomes law, many people will take down sites completely rather than pay to do major revamping to meet ADA requirements, and then *nobody* benefits.
Is this by chance the same Southwest that charges fat people for two seats?
In that case, they deserve this lawsuit. There should be seats of different sizes. The variation in human size is quite great. One-size-fits-all is dumb and insulting.
If so, sue the bastards out of sky!
Table-ized A.I.
That's a very good question. IANAL, but IIRC the ADA applies to any public accomodation, which some would say includes nearly all websites. (Damn, I've been reading /. way too much. Two common slash acronyms in one sentence!)
On the other hand, if you are handing out pamphlets on a street corner, there's no law that says they need to be available in braile.
Bottom line is that if you are going to enforce the ADA for any businesses at all, it should also be enforeced for e-commerce businesses. Private sites, existing for the sake of blogging or whatever, perhaps should be exempt. It will probably take a few of these sorts of lawsuits to hammer it out, because the ADA was, alas, a pathetically vague law.
However, whether or not the law says your site must be blind-accessible, in most cases it ought to be, because if you are simply following standards (which includes proper use of "alt" tags), then most of what you put on the web already is.
If your site can't be read by these text-to-voice tools the blind use, it should be pointed out that you are a shitty webmaster.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Does this mean anyone with a web site has to be in compliance with this cat's text-to-speech converter?
There are a number of published standards (including HTML 4.01), that require use of alt tags on images. You won't even pass simple HTML validation without these tags.
If Southwest had bothered to even live up to that low level, I doubt that they would be getting sued.
First, Southwest Airlines is a private company. They can run their web site any way they see fit
Nope. Just because you own something doesn't give you untrammeled use. When you drive your car, you have numerous laws to comply with.
South West Airlines website is not an accessibility nightmare.
Look at the top navigation. Notice that it is comprised of images without alt tags.
How do you expect a text reader to deal with that sort of nonsense?
[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]
Now, we add a whole new method of content rendering. We can't even impliment the main standards properly. How do we plan to ensure that an audio interface can successfully read a website, as well? Keep in mind that this is not what the web was originally designed to handle.
Actually, this IS what the web was developed to handle. Take a look at any HTML/1.0 page and you will notice that it can be read perfectly. Everything became screwed up when the <table> tag was introduced and people started to use HTML as a substitute for PDF, and later Flash. HTML is a markup, not a layout language.
As far as the internet being "hard to convert": no it isn't. Some businesses just need to get hit with a couple of lawsuits to figure that one out. Yes, websites do need to take that into account, so some webmasters will have to change their ways. But, you can make a perfectly functional audio website by using a content management system that supports it, without too much effort. Audio internet is not a hard problem unless you are an amateur trying to do a professional's job.
Obesity is not a disability in and of itself. Yes, there are medical conditions, such as poly-cystic ovarian syndrome in women and giantism in men, which can make fitting into a sardine-sized airline seat difficult. However, the majority of people in the United States are obese because they made themselves that way--and I feel no remorse for someone who's charged for two seats because he ate himself into occupying 1½.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Do they produce brail phone books?
Of course, you could always get the number from their web-site...
BTW. It's piss easy to make a site accessable for blind. A few Alt tags here and there. And a bit more consideration in the layout flow, and it should be fine (Proper flow is something that lacks on most sites, and should be done anyway).
Anyone who says it's too hard is probably just too fsking lazy.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Getting back to the plaintiff described in the article, I'd think an easier solution would be to call 1 800 555-1212, get Southwest's toll-free number from them, and then call that number. I'd think the same information is available that way as is available through their website (probably more info, in fact, such as information on what flights are on time/delayed/etc.). This has to be easier than filing yet another lawsuit. Then again, I suppose the ambulance chasers wouldn't make any money off of such a common-sense solution.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
"Everything became screwed up when the tag was introduced and people started to use HTML as a substitute for PDF, and later Flash. HTML is a markup, not a layout language."
A very good point. Unfortunately, most business sites seem to prefer to make their own layout decisions, rather than let the browser do it. That's actually a very interesting idea - a pdf based web. PDF has hyperlinking abilities - with expanded animation support it might actually work well.
Audio internet is not a hard problem unless you are an amateur trying to do a professional's job.
That's just it - a lot of smaller companies and non-profits can't afford to hire a professional web designer. Meaning a real pro, not just someone trained in Dreamweaver or Frontpage. Some of the most interesting stuff on the web is offered by smaller companies. Also, what about individual pages? A casual stamp collector, for example, who lists a few stamps for sale but is not really a full time dealer? Where is the line drawn? That's what makes things tough.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I don't use the Flash plugin... so I can't read a lot of websites I'd like to visit. I also use linux, so again, some websites are out of my reach. Although I don't have a disability, would my situation constitute grounds for legal action?
No, you choose to not use the Flash plugin. I'm pretty sure this guy didn't choose to be blind.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Either too lazy, or too stupid. There are plenty of "designers" who use the latest, off the shelf GUI HTML editor to put pizzaz into their website (ie flash, javascript scripts, and java applets), without giving a single thought to what exactly is getting uploaded.
The really stupid thing is that the same steps to make site access better for the blind would also make the site easier to access for cell phone/pda users, and users on browser-appliances like WebTV, not to mention the uber-geeks using tools like Opera and Konqueror without all the bells and whistles installed. It's not like complying with the ADA is only gonna deliver you the blind customers - it's gonna deliver you many other segments besides.
It's just laziness. Plus stupidity. A perfect example of management bozoism combined with MCSE "graduates"...
Except that there is one crucial difference here: in your example, you have to go out of your way to discriminate between blacks and whites: you have to set up a completely separate drinking fountain.
In the case of Southwest's web site, it's exactly the opposite: they would have to go out of their way to not "discriminate" by accomodating the blind person.
My view on this is almost purely practical: is it easier and faster for someone to surf a compliant web site to get at the ticket information he's interested in, or is it easier and faster for him to call their toll-free number and speak to someone directly?
And the answer is that if you're not blind, it's probably easier and faster to surf the web site and get at what you want (depends on how adept you are at operating the computer. Should we now talk about discrimination against people who can't use a computer??), but if you're blind it's easier and faster to call no matter how accomodating the web site is. And that's because visual scanning of information is orders of magnitude faster than audio or tactile scanning of that same information.
Bottom line: it doesn't matter how blind-friendly Southwest makes their web site: it'll still be harder for a blind person to use than the telephone. As long as the rates, schedules, and special offers are identical between the two, the fact that Southwest's web site isn't blind-friendly should not matter.
So no, you can't use the black-versus-white comparison and get away with it. That discrimination is foul because it is based on superficial differences that don't make any real difference. Blind versus sighted is very different, because here we are talking about a true difference in capabilities.
And if you don't believe that, then you must believe that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that they should be allowed to fly personal airplanes. That we don't allow the blind to drive a car or pilot an airplane is "discrimination" of the same kind we're talking about, right?
You have to draw the line somewhere, because there is a real difference between a blind person and a sighted one, and no amount of legal wrangling will change that basic fact. At some point, the disadvantaged (in whatever way, from being physically disabled in some way to being unable to speak or read the commonly-used language) person has to take some responsibility for dealing with his condition. To insist on anything else leads to absurdities such as requiring all businesses to hire people who can read, write and speak every human language in use on the planet today.
So: you seem to be in favor of forcing Southwest and any other business to make their site "blind-friendly". Are you also in favor of forcing them to do their site up in Cantonese? Arabic? Czech? Finnish? The only reason a blind person can view a web site at all is that he can get his hands on technology that does the translation for him. Are you going to insist that the technology involved be made available for free? Are you going to insist that everyone limit their web site designs to only those that said technology can handle? How far are you willing to go here? At what point do you draw the line? If the translators that blind people obviously use didn't exist, would you then insist that businesses not be able to put up web sites just because blind people couldn't then make use of them?
Enough of all that. The blind person can pick up the phone and get exactly the same results. It's only if he can't get the same deals that he has a legitimate gripe. Otherwise he should convince the vendor of his translator to produce something that can read Southwest's web site.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
If you follow the poster's logic here no civil right law would ever be valid! The ADA is a civil rights law, just like the ones passed to enforce equal access to african americans or other minorities. Do you have a right not to serve a black, asian or others if you run a business? No of course not and if you do refuse service to them what happens to you? I'll tell you waht happens you find yourself in court, that's what.
Okay. So you approve of civil rights law. What is it about my arguement that is unreasonable or illogical?
My arguement is really simple: Slavery is involuntary servitude. Such laws as the ADA force one group of people (business owners) to serve another (the disabled) by building ramps for them, etc. Since the ADA forces people to involuntarily serve another, it is a form of slavery by definition.
Now maybe you think thats okay. Maybe it is okay. Maybe a little slavery will do business people good, but what about the arguement do you think is wrong?
Your making it sound like a big task, that's going to mean 2x the ammount of work need to create a site, and creating new standards and new protocols. It's just not nessesary. The tools are already there. And you don't have to do much to make a big difference.
Nobody is asking us to make the experience perfect for dissabled people, just usable. It's not an unfair or hard request.
Market pressure only works when there's enough of a force to cause a pressure. Otherwise, a segment of the population can be ignored.
For a good example of this, find out which theater in your area runs open-captioned movies (text on screen...and isn't a foreign film) for the deaf. Try only going to the open-captioned movies for a few months. You'll usually get one movie a week (their choice, not your's)...one day of the week...and one showtime for the day. Imagine the movie theater telling you when, where, and how often you can watch films in current release on the big screen (nevermind the fact that the open-captioning can sometimes be extremely shoddy in description of the sounds).
Without the ADA, do you really think the theater's making billions over its competition off of being the only one in town to take a single showtime of its entire week and dedicating it to the deaf and their friends?
Businesses concern themselves with money first. Society concerns itself with people first. There will be conflicts, but so far, the resolutions have been fair and equitable. For example, there was a lawsuit not long ago because a wheelchair-bound person claimed that the handicapped seating in stadium theaters is not reasonable (down low and to the side). She wanted to force the theater to install an elevator system behind the seating to lift her to a higher vantage. IIRC, she lost and the judge told her it was unreasonable to put the theater through that sort of trouble since they did provide a fair and reasonable area of which non-handicapped people were also often relegated due to seating capacity.
These things work out in the best interests of all of us usually. I think reader program accessible websites are a valid concern. It also certainly wouldn't be difficult to put in a "go to this address instead" meta tag for the reader software to pick up on. Most of us don't code HTML/DHTML by hand anymore anyways, so it'd be easy enough to put it into the auto-create template for your favorite web designer...hell, add a lynx address too for the gui-disabled.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
In the one case, government demands that A serve B regardless of A's wishes, or face punishment.
In the other case, government demands that A not go onto B's land regardless of A's wishes, or face punishment.
If slavery is so expansive then objection to it becomes unsupportable unless you're simply advocating anarchy. If you want the rule of law then there's pretty certainly going to have to be a way to force people to comply with those laws even if they don't want to of their own accord.
Here, I don't believe this is slavery. No businessman is stupid enough to claim that he is not reliant on governmental regulation. Government enforces contracts. It breaks up trusts. It keeps banks solvent. It supports the system of commercial paper that permit the buying and selling of goods reliably at a distance in time and space. It provides property law. Business cannot thrive without government and frankly, would be so impovershed without it that it would barely exist.
This is vastly different from a standpoint of abhoring and fighting slavery -- real slavery -- in all its forms.
So the difference seems obvious to me. What makes you think that a regulation on business such as requring them to provide lighted exit signs in event of fire is the same as putting people in chains, treating them as property, and whipping them into submission are similar?
Slavery is not JUST involuntarily serving another. I admit; the difference is difficult to articulate. But I am certain that if you asked a hundred people whether or not ordinary regulation is the same as chattle slavery, you'd get a hundred people telling you you're a fool for even having to ask.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I see no problem making web sites like the airline in question accessible to impaired people. The issue is where the line gets drawn, and by whom. The web encompasses more than just simple services like airline tickets-- it is also an artistic medium, a place people throw their diaries, a good way for a grad student to post their research quickly, or a way to make stupid jokes to share with the world.
Without very careful consideration, a law as thorough as our current physical-world rules would make large pieces of the web illegal. For example-- that funny flash movie with no vocals your friend sent you (frog in a blender, anyone?) is now off-limits. How could you possibly make that accessible? A page showing a montage of photographs? There are a number of things that are purely or significantly visual on the web that would be impossible to make accessible to the sight impaired.
A law is needed-- blind people make up such a tiny percentage of the population that they don't make up enough of a group to have any impact on the market financially. But the law needs to be a masterpiece of careful thought and planning, or it will strip the web of purely visual artworks, and make information exchange via quick-and-dirty sites a thing of the past.
These services are available to anyone who has enough money to purchase a computer. That's a huge difference. This means that there is a whole section of the population who does not have access to the services. These people are limited to calling Southwest's toll-free customer service line. That service, which *is* available to everyone, is fully accessible to the blind.
Not to be cold about it, but what makes you think that a blind person is more entitled to some web service than some person on welfare who has no possibility of even owning a computer?
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
I agree it's not unfair, but I'll believe it's not hard when I see it happen.
That may be overkill, but let me explain.
You probably know more about the technology out there for this, so if you say the tools are sufficient I'll accept that as a basis for discussion. (Aside question - I wonder about support for multiple languages, though - are there tools to address that?)
Many commercial sites use all sorts of tricks to add visual effects to their pages, and many did/do not consider the audio side of things. This means re-evaluating their page from the point of view of a blind user. Consider that a larger company may have hundreds/thousands of pages needing evaluation. That's a job in and of itself. Then site wide corrections need to be made. Or, alternately, a parallel site specifically designed for audio may be developed, which would also be a large task. If the webpage writers don't know the first thing about audio display, they have to learn about it. More time and money.
If the tools and protocals do in fact exist, that will help a great deal. But the sheer amount of content that needs to be re-evaluated will make it a huge task. Maybe not for well designed and implimented sites using largely standard protocals, but I guess I'm too cynical to believe that most commercial websites are implimented that way.
There may be an underlying assumption I'm making that you're not - companies will undertake this solely and only to reduce their legal vulnerability. I.e., the want to make it very hard for anyone to even bring a lawsuit, since any legal action at all costs money. I suspect they will worry about people saying that because the site doesn't have feature a or b they are treating blind people as second class citizens. I don't know how you or the law define usable, but unless this law is different from most other legal matters it will need to be interpreted in court. More time and money for companies. So if they reason it out and decide that they will likely get sued in any case, and since so many of them settle out of court even when they could win, they may conclude that the effort it would take to do a good audio presentation of their poorly written site isn't worth the extra time and money.
This is just my take on it. I hope I'm wrong and you're right - it would be better for everyone. And indeed a small effort would likely make a big difference. But in my perhaps overly cynical view it's a lot of work for a dubious monetary payoff (helping blind people use the web better is worth a lot, but doesn't show up on quarterly profit reports) since they likely will be sued by someone regardless.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
...because companies don't give a rats ass about accessibility. Now the ADA DOES apply to web sites.
If you provide a service in the States, then you are liable.
Besides, the sort of thing that you are asking for is a very simple thing to implement. For instance Alt tags for images.
I've seen a lot of commercial sites that don't have the alt text.
Talk to a lawyer, I know one who could tell you that this is an open and shut case and Southwest won't win.
On an unrelated note, a lot of theaters STILL don't carry open captioned films even though they are required to by law. I'm getting sick of it enough that I MIGHT sue a theater.
In the one case, government demands that A serve B regardless of A's wishes, or face punishment.
In the other case, government demands that A not go onto B's land regardless of A's wishes, or face punishment.
If slavery is so expansive then objection to it becomes unsupportable unless you're simply advocating anarchy. If you want the rule of law then there's pretty certainly going to have to be a way to force people to comply with those laws even if they don't want to of their own accord.
The difference is that forcing people to comply with the law in the first case means something different then forcing people to comply with it in the second. In the first case, someone is indeed being made to do something for someone else or face punishment. They are being made to comply. In the second case, avoiding punishment is as simple as just doing nothing. You aren't being made to comply or actually being made to do anything.
Consider the former slaves of the south after the civil war. We agree that they were slaves before the civil war and free afterwards. What changed? After the civil war, they were still subject to tresspass laws, laws against theft, etc. There was still a threat of punishment for doing certain things. Does this mean they just changed masters? Did the Union become the master? I don't think so. If the Union of the North had simply taken over the plantations and forced the slaves to continue working, we'd say they had a different master then. But this didn't happen. What changed is that before they were forced to work for another and after they were no longer forced. This shows that the threat of punishment is a necessary, but not sufficient for slavery. Forcing one to serve another is also required.
So the difference seems obvious to me. What makes you think that a regulation on business such as requring them to provide lighted exit signs in event of fire is the same as putting people in chains, treating them as property, and whipping them into submission are similar?
I'm not sure the example of fire exit signs is the same as ADA requirements. Please don't think I'm objecting to all rules and regulations that might be placed on a business. I'm not advocating anarchy. I don't think this is an argument about regulation versus no regulation. Some rules are needed to have a functioning economy. Its the nature of the rules that is important.
I also think your example is a bad one because you're trying to place emphasis on the difference in the degrees of punishment involved. This isn't an argument about the different degrees of punishment. What is common to the ADA requirements and slavery is that one person is being forced to serve another or be punished. This is the very definition of slavery.
Slavery is not JUST involuntarily serving another. I admit; the difference is difficult to articulate.
When you discover what else is necessary to have slavery, please let me know. So far the difference just seems to be a matter of degree.
But I am certain that if you asked a hundred people whether or not ordinary regulation is the same as chattle slavery, you'd get a hundred people telling you you're a fool for even having to ask.
Again, its the type of regulation thats important.
To quote you out of context:
How many major sites now use flash, can the screen reader translate that?
Not only might the screen reader not be able to read this, but chances are my PDA can't either!!
Sites that use only flash, or make important data require flash to access, are not a good thing. There should always be some way that someone with the most basic browser can get to information they need. Furthermore they lock themselves away from many wireless or small device users.
Companies, think carefully before thowing away future customers! Text is simply the best way of transmitting most information that humans want to see (even text directions can be better than a map at times!!), and as such plan for a future that integrates text with diagrams, rather than throwing it away.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
are lawyers. Why does the US have half the worlds lawyers? It really makes no sense.
Anyways. The clear answers to this blind persons problem is that instead of suing a company for not supporting their method of access, use your power as a member of a capitalistic society, and send a message with your money.
Find another company that supports you better, and spend your money with them.
Why does common logic like this escape so many people?
Casual Games/Downloads
I think the line is very clear. What you described is obviously fine, and blind people would have no problems with something like an art site that used Flash or movies of any sort.
The line is in my mind lives about where it lives right now in the physical world, and as with so many things needs only slight clarification instead of major overhaul. If your web site is for a commercial entity to be accesses by the public than you need to make any pages external customers might access in the course of doing business with you accessible.
If you're smart then you'll also make internal pages accessible as well so that when someone who does fall under the ADA guidelines gets hired, you wont have any problems. Even better, how aboput making sure your crucial internal app is not the reason the company has to turn somebody away because they will not be able to run it, who then sues you as a result (only a step away from this story).
I really can't believe all the people here pushing back on this issue. I like to think that, god forbid, something really bad should happen to me I'd still be able to work AND use the internet for leisure. A lot of people here seem to be fine with the thought that the internet as a body should cast away anyone without two hands, great reflexes, and 20/20 vision.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, there's been a braille edition of Playboy available since at least 1970. At least Playboy says so.
We can all agree that when the ADA was passed it didn't have the internet in mind. The defense will agrue that it therefore doesn't apply to the web. The procicution will argue that the internet has become a normal part of life for most people and that it should therefore be covered under the ADA. Would you be able to function "normally" if you couldn't use the net?
I don't think the facts of the case are in dispute. the plantif clearly can't use the sight and sence you've been there you know why. (You have been there right) The question then becomes could the plaintif have recieved the same service by some other means. (The telephone seems to be mentioned alot) the answer is here clearly no. In order to get the discounds for some of these programs you must use the web interface. To give and analogy in the brick and morter world, what would happen if you got %50 off movie tickets provided you only used the stairs?
Here things get a bit trickier. SW must provide the same services offered on the web to ADA protected people. This could simple mean a note at the bottom of some pages stating that people with visual impairment may receive web only offers by phone. If on the other hand it is ruled that there is something intrinsically serviceable about SW's web page then they very well may have to change there sight.
First off this part will depend a lot on how the previous questions were answered. Second it will depend on what gets ruled as a service. To give an example, I'm fairly sure Hotmail doesn't work with the web reader. There is also the issue of what standards will have to be met. Wheel chair ramps must be wide enough to accommodate a standard wheelchair, and everyone knows how big that is because it's in the code. On the other hand there is no standard for web readers. Establishing one (if necessary) will be a long and painful processes with lots of lawyers involved.
In the end, I (and IANAL) believe that the ADA will apply in a very limited fashion to the web, simply requiring that ADA protected groups be able to access services availably on the web either directly or through alternate means (telephone). Ialso think it will apply only to those buisnesses that offer non-web based services through web interfaces. It will take another case to clarify what happens to sights sell goods, and sights that offer only web based services (like slashdot).
In a closing note I want to remind readers that the ADA protects people from unequal treatment which they could not otherwise aviod. If every blind person in the US were to boycott SW it would not make a dent in SW's revinew. The ADA is the governments way of providing a leagle insentave to accomadate dissabled people for whom a finiantial incentive is not availible. This is not to say it isn't used like a club by scum sucking lawyers, nor is it to say that it couldn't use some fixing and clarifaction, but it is an important piece of law with it's place in our society.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Fine. How about ATMs that only white men can use?
As for "If SW Airlines doesn't want blind people for customers, so be it," replace with "If SW Airlines doesn't want black people or women for customers, so be it."
You will probably reply that it's different.
You bet it is. It isn't even technologically feasible to make an ATM (or web site) that only white men are capable of using. Even if it was, that would arguably take more effort than just making an ordinary ATM or web site (for example, you would have to add some way to detect whether the user was a white man or not). In those cases, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit such "features".
But this case is different. In this case, the user actually lacks the ability to see, which is a prerequisite for functioning normally in our society, and Southwest simply hasn't added support for such users. They haven't deliberately denied access, as in your hypothetical case. Whether they should be required to add such features is certainly something that can (and should) be debated, but don't try to equate it with anti-racism and "fairness".
There is nothing intrinsic to travel on Southwest airlines that precludes access to blind passengers.
Yes, but what do travel on Southwest and access to Southwest's web site have to do with each other? I assume that Southwest has some sort of telephone center, which should be more than sufficient to make reservations, purchase tickets, and do anything else necessary. Even if you do argue a "right" to ride on Southwest, that doesn't equate to a "right" to use Southwest's web site. Those are two distinct actions, with different prerequisites.
For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that Southwest shouldn't be forced to make such changes. People with disabilities ought to realize that they can't participate fully in society, and accept that. (Or else find a workaround--like the text-to-speech devices--but failings of that workaround shouldn't be made the fault of society!)
And before you ask, yes, I would still hold the same opinion even if I was, or became, blind. (And I likewise don't go screaming ADA at companies because I happen to use Lynx a lot. I realize that by using Lynx I may not be able to use some sites--and I accept that.)
Anybody who has been hiring professional web talent to do their commercial site should have been warned about this ever since the ADA was passed. There are legal obligations for any commercial communication, print, radio, TV, or web. If corporate legal passed on it they were very much in the wrong. I've been on projects where I've brought this up and was told "screw 'em, we don't care".
Now personally, I don't think that the ADA is particularly good law (partially for the compliance costs) but it *is* the law. The people who wrote the sites and maintained them had an obligation to be compliant. Lots of people have managed to do it just fine. Either get the law changed, comply with the law, or just be prepared to get legally screwed as part of civil disobedience. Contributing to the breakdown of the rule of law is just not an option as far as I'm concerned.
As airlines are moving to e-ticket and internet ticketing savings it's not a good commercial idea to shut out the disabled from those discounts and it's not legal in the US and many other countries.
That wouldn't necessarily trip up a text reader if they properly put in 'ALT' tags.
IMO, requiring businesses to provide accesibility measures for the disabled is a justified restriction to place on the non-disabled. Consider that without the accesibility laws, businesses don't provide them on their own good will, and the disabled are unable to function even if they are capable. [emphasis added]
So what, in your mind, makes a blind person "capable" of using a (visual-oriented) web site?
Heh... I'm reminded of my attempt to play DOOM blindfolded. I did actually make it to the exit alive, but it was a near thing. Also once had to input a bunch of articles in WordPerfect -- with no monitor. Thank ghu for DOS. :)
But the point I see is, the world at large isn't designed AGAINST the disabled (contrary to what some activists claim); it just isn't designed FOR them. Rather, the world is designed to accomodate the *average* person.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Next I suppose we will have a lawsuit from a visually challenged person that they cannot get proper access to a pr0n site. The court will rule that the site must provide blow-up dolls hooked to the web browser and controlled by Javascript for the poor guy.
Long ago, a science fiction writer (I don't remember who, unfortunately) wrote a short story about a society which tried to equalize everything for everybody. If you were too fast, you wore weights to slow you down. If you were too smart, you wore a device that randomly made a loud noise and startled you out of your train of thought.
We are headed that way!
The only good weather is bad weather.
I haven't used Opera (I'm on Mozilla), but reading the description of this "feature" - that is, resizing bitmaps - perhaps because resized bitmaps look like shit? Especially if not done by a factor of 2?
I think that the problem with the SouthWest site is simply that they use graphics links that don't specify their alt tags. At least when I ran it through the w3c's HTML validator that's the main complaint. This isn't rocket science, nor is it very hard to comply with. We're not talking about a lot of money and if their web guys had followed standard industry best practices there wouldn't have been a problem.
As a bonus, you make your site accessible via Lynx so it wouldn't just be a benefit to the blind.
I don't know who did the SW airlines site but they weren't served very well.
I reviewed a couple of pages in the site. The main issues seem to be that there's no DTD (not a blind issue) and no image alt tags for navigation (very much a problem for the blind and for text browsers). SW hired bad web designers and they had clueless lawyers review the design contract. A simple clause requiring compliance with all relevant legal standards would have done the trick.
Hello, in this case we're most likely talking about image links with no alt tags. In this particular instance, following w3c standards would likely have solved the whole issue without having a PR black eye and running up legal bills.
Go to the southwest site and just look at the code or run it through the w3c html validator.
do you drive a car? should we make the streets blind accessible?
Rights do not impose burdens upon others. Laws like this, which can be easily be carried to extremes, can be stifling. For example, I am a public school teacher. We are being killed by special ed. There is no limit to what can be asked for, and gotten. Parents get "advocates" and lawsuits kill the schools. Most of these kids are totally fine, just that the parents abuse the laws.
Remember what Barry Goldwater said, "A government big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take it all away".
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
The web designers who created the website seem to have no understanding of either DTDs or image alt tags. If they went back and filled in those values, I think SW wouldn't be inaccessible to the blind.
It's just a very dumb situation that never should have gotten to the lawsuit level. SW's shareholders are being ill served by the situation.
Those aren't instructions. Learn braille! It says:
Warning: You are currently standing in front of a drive-up atm. Please move out of the way before you are run over by a careless driver intent on withdrawing $20.00.
Southwest airlines has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maximize its customer base so that every profitable customer who's going to behave responsibly (no terrorists please) gets served.
This maximizes profits and makes the shareholders happy. If Southwest management had either followed w3c standards and filled in their alt tags or Southwest airlines legal had put a requirement for their web consultants to follow best practices or at least current law, none of this would have happened.
In short, there's a perfectly free market way of looking at the situation and coming to the conclusion that Southwest has screwed up.
The major problem is that Southwest management (and every other corporate mangement under the sun) has decided not to make use of technology so that shareholders can exercise meaningful control over their companies. Thus you end up with an expensive, embarrassing lawsuit that would have been much more quickly, efficiently resolved if the owners could meaningfully manage their employees.
Actually, /. Posted a story awhile back about people who made a mod for blind people to play quake. Here is the link.
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
Haven't spent to much time on that web, myself. The web I use tends to be composed of information, usually in the form of little magnetic bits aligned in one direction or another. As I'm unable to access info directly from magnetic media, I prefer to get that info in the form of written words. But this web I use isn't inherently visual- I could get the same information aurally, just not as quickly. A SQL query on a database to retrieve a ticket price-- nothing inherently visual about that, except the purely personal aspect of me reading the results rather than hearing them.
But then until 1997 or so I did most of my web browsing in Lynx, and I'd be happy enough to be able to do so again. When I want a pure reading experience, all the "inherently visual" aspects of the web get in the way: text is quick to download, unlike all the gifs and flash bouncing advertisements. So I'm not unhappy about people pushing for ADA and accessability standards for web pages: what makes for better access for the blind also makes for an easier, faster, and less stupid-blinking-ads experience for me.
I've always thought people who think you have to be able to drive to use a drive-up ATM are complete and total gits.
If someone invented a technique to graft a person's ass to a bucket seat, Americans would be lining up out into the street to get it done.
... applies here in sweden...
Perhaps English isn't the poster's first language?
All you have to do is have your content be available in plain text format. In otherwords, plain HTML. If you do this, your page will be compliant.
It actualy takes work to make webpages incompatable.
You don't have to translate you're page into 300 languages at all.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The government's been requiring almost all IT products including web sites be accessible for years. If you do design for anything government-related, you're used to this by now. And you know how government self-regulation has a habit of leaking out to the country at large.
If you need to make a site accessible quickly, or develop an accessible one from scratch, get InFocus from SSB.
To have the govt set up a service with humans that read web sites to any blind web surfer? Could be linked via a collaboration program so both would be seeing the same site. Overall, this seems cheaper to the US economy than forcing every business in the US to redesign their web site.
.gif files or something it won't be.
Have you ever heard of this thing called "HTML"? If you use this "HTML" stuff to design your website, it will be able to be read by blind people. If on the other hand, you use flash, or put all your textual content in
In other words, you actually have to work to make a website that can't be read by blind people. Since these companies already put so much effort only to exclude people, they might as well put in a little more to fix the problem.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
We can do so, a trained monkey could almost do so, it's quite easy to do... the problem is instead of trained monkeys we have so-called web designers that refuse to learn the basic facts about HTML. I don't know if you're one of them or not, but your post is a perfect example of the ignorant arrogance I'm talking about.
By using HTML. Very simple. If your website is readable with lynx, it's readable for the blind. If it's not, you need to learn HTML and fix it.
No, this is exactly what the web was originally designed to handle. Ever wonder why it's so difficult to control page layout exactly with HTML? It's because HTML is a content language, not a layout language. It was designed from the beginning to leave 'layout' decisions up to the browser, for precisely the reason that it was designed to be accessible via every disparate 'viewing' device imaginable, explicitely including teletypes and voice-readers!
Here go educate yourself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Out of curiousity on how much work would be involved to populate the ALT tags on the www.southwest.com airlines website, I discovered the following statistics:
According to the HTTP header for requests on port 80 and 443 (SSL), SouthWest is using Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3. Since the latest version is 6.0 SP4, I would not trust their website to be secure (SSL does not matter if the dated web server has security holes).
The website was retrieved using "wget -r -l 1000 http://www.southwest.com/" Although wget honors restrictions stated in the robots.txt file, it only disallowed cgi-bin.
The recursive fetch of the website contains the follow file make up:
811 html files
571 gif files
258 jpg files
18 pdf files
5 other file formats
The html files contain:
14 unique cgi-bin references
34,713 total IMG tags
682 IMG tags with ALT attribute (less than 2%)
The remaining 34,031 IMG tags without an ALT attribute contain only 364 unique references.
Hence, I believe I could write a sed script to update each HTML file to contain the approbate ALT text for every IMG tag in less than 7 hours. I would be willing to do the work for $500 provided that I was also contracted for another $500 to install a licensed copy of Netscape-Enterprise/Sun ONE Enterprise Web Server v6.0 SP4 ($1,495) and install the latest Solaris 8 recommended patch cluster (although the web server update is a seprate issue, I don't like to leave a job/situation half done). I would have to be able to see the 14 cgi scripts before deciding how much to charge to modify them to also output approbate ALT text but I would imagine that would be under $1,000.
In the end, I believe that SouthWest airlines has saved approx. $3,500 by violating the HTMLv4 specification requiring ALT attributes for every IMG tag and by continuing to run an outdated version of Netscape-Enterprise web server. Considering that a lawsuit will probably cost them over 30 times that amount, hopefully they will learn to be willing to spend the money in the future to keep their files and software up to date.
I just looked at your page, it's fine... any page that's written in real HTML is fine. So why the concern?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I have read a lot of negative comments about not supporting the ADA on this one... But then I thought, why not use this as an oppurtunity to have web sites forced to be compilant with standards? No more ActiveX sites that don't work with Mozilla... No more sites that say: "Your Opera browser is not compatible with this site. Please use IE 5.5 or 6" Wouldn't that be nice? Now I hate legislation too, but if there is going to be legislation on this, let's use it not only for the benefit of blind people, but also us nerds! Yeah, Go ADA!!!
If you have a disability, why is it the world's job to cater to YOU, instead of YOUR job to adapt to the world?
If someone is blind AND deaf, will they insist that every movie theater provide someone to do that Helen Keller style sign-language-inside-your-hand-so-you-can-feel-it to tell you what's happening on the screen and what's being said?
I'm all for companies voluntarily making their sites/buildings/whatever more accessible, and I believe that government sites might have a greater reason to be "required" to be accessible, but to make it mandatory is just cost-shifting the expense of "being handicapped" from the person who actually is handicapped to "lots of companies who are rich and can afford it".
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"
"That's as ludicrous as saying every author writing a book needs to have it translated and published into every foreign language in common use"
We provide the translators. It's equivalent to saying you can't publish a book which prevents people from reading it aloud to their blind friends.
"The fact is, many sites right now are quite browser-dependent"
In that case, I find it extremely useful that ADA is forcing such sites to sort their act out and get a professional site that actually works.
"If we didn't have Javascript, web sites would be much less useful."
Javascript is obsolete for exactly that reason: it hardly ever works. back in 1998 when IE was king, everyone had to disable javascript completely because of security risks. Now that we have mozilla, most people allow javascript to run with restrictions on it (no popups...). However, anybody who needs active content has already updated their sites to use server-side scripting which works regardless of browser.
Simple example: a javascript website will not only look like a p.o.s. to anyone with scripts turned off (try it sometime) but won't even show up on google.
"If this had to be presented as pure HTML... (rant about difficulty)"
Give me your javascript source, and I'll show you how easy it is to convert to PHP.
"This is a question of whether we want to let government dictate requirements for every site we build."
Okay, final analogy:
"Voting today will be done with touch-screens. Our apologies to blind people, but we do not have the resources to test our machines with a wide range of people. This voting machine is optimised for eyeball explorer(tm)."
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.
Would someone please give me alist of the top three or so screen readers? We have been working on 58 compliance but without an example of a screen reader it has bee very difficult.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I've saved your email address, if & when things get up & going, I'll check with you again, in case you change your mind.
Thanks again.
I would love to see your reference to the code on that one.
The law excludes PUNITIVE damages, but not damages. The entire purpose of the civil justice system is damages, the idea that one party was wronged by another, and to make him whole by collecting damages. What also follows is that the loser pays the winner's attorney fees.
Punitive damages are damages that are above and beyond what is necessary to make the plaintiff whole. They are punitive, in they are intended to discourage others from behaving in a similar manner. These are not allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
If damages were disallowed, one could not file suit. There are many examples of these kinds of laws. Instead of filing a civil suit, you make a complaint to an administrative board, and they hear your case.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
The idea behind the web is that the server presents the information with simple tags and the client makes rendering decisions (hopefully) based on user preferences
Most of the terrible sites out there are the result of 4 foot tall pointy headed analy retentive control freaks who can't stand the possability that your client might render the page with a single pixel 'out of place'.
While part of the problem is clueless companies, the real problem is clueless web designers. Companies often outsource these things to 'experts' because they know that they don't know what to do.
The idea that making a text-only version of a website is all that's needed to make a website accessible is a myth. Its the same myth that provokes other webdesigners to construct "Netscape" and "IE" duplicates of websites - its ludicrous and involves some serious overheads in keeping multiple versions of a website in synch and up-to-date. You can bet your bottom dollar that the text version of the site is the first to be left behind and overlooked when it comes to updating.
Creating an accessible website is not difficult. The recommendations and guidelines have been available on the web since 1999 - the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is there for website authors to create accessible content. There's nothing in there that's remotely difficult.
I'm amazed at the level of complains from so-called "creative artists" about the Web and how they don't want to follow the standards path. Other artists in other media work within the constraints and boundaries of their chosen media and deliver work of high quality. And then they use the media to its full use.
But when it comes to websites, these so-called artists cannot understand the web beyond what they see in their browsers. They limit their imagination and scope and refuse to make their creations accessible in a public medium.
They are "so-called artists" since its clear they do not understand the breadth and depth of the World Wide Web. The ability to build accessible websites should be a mandatory skill requirement before embarking on a professional career in web design - its as important as the ability to write legibly.
What's remotely difficult and expensive about doing the job of building a website correctly the first time? Accessibility is not difficult - never has been. The guidelines for accessibilty have been around almost from the inception of the World Wide Web, heck even the City of San Jose have their accessibility guidelines on their websites for quite a long stretch of time.
The whole point of accessibility is that it makes websites more accessible to more people in more locations, more situations and more devices than without accessibility. It allows your company access to a larger audience. Its not expensive or difficult to implement accessibility. Anyone with common sense can do it.
When a company gets serious and makes its website fully accessible, it benefits not only people with disabilities, but also allows their website to be accessible to mobile computing devices such as the Pocket PC and handheld computer -- this is going to be such a huge market, the pervasive web. If you can't sell accessibility to a company with this advantage, then I guess you have a website that isn't worth anything to anybody.
Why re-invent the wheel and keep creating a square one? With an accessible and valid website, you have instant compatibility with Voice XML. Then you can take a web page convert it into VXML which can allow someone to _phone_ a webserver and interact with it like a normal conversation.
All it takes is an accessible and compliant website - something that's not difficult at all.
And if you'd done any 508 work by hand, you'd know to appreciate the link.
/.
AC, you might as well yell spam for the thousands of other software recommendations on
Not to kick disabled people in the junk but ADA requirements on web sites is absolute bullshit. My state recently required it on all state-agenct websites. It's a God Damn nightmare. You can't use half the shit you used to use for web pages and be compliant. It's damned near impossible to build a useful site for a Unv that's completely ADA compatible unless plain text floats your boat. I don't know what the solution is but I DO NOT BELIEVE that ADA requirements should be forced on the Internet. Installing a wide door and a ramp in a bulding is easy. Building a website that works in the top 3 browsers on the major platforms AND be ADA compliant is just not possible IMHO.
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
titles to links are used when your link text is insufficient to clearly indicate what you are linking to. You can avoid using the title attribute by being more expressive on your link text.
Captions to Tables: If you are using a table for no reason, then its questionable whether you need a table. A caption is just a string of text that explains what can be found in the table. A proper compliant website shouldn't have more than three or four tables anyway. And designers using tables for layout - against its purpose - are thankfully SOL. They are welcomed to join the present and quit hankering over html3.2
You don't label your form fields? That would make your forms unusable to anyone. How do they tell where to enter an address or credit card number if you don't specify what the input field needs to contain.
If you are worrying about long text on alts, then use the available longdesc attribute and put the description in a separate html file.
You considerably hyperbolise the bloat, considering that when you do the job properly the first time, and using CSS to encapsulate the presentation, the resulting file sizes, and more importantly the download time, is drastically smaller when compared to something like a slashdot frontpage.
So Macromedia didn't follow generally accepted standard of embedding objects into webpages. That's Macromedia's problem for not following a documented recommendation.
If your website is completely reliant on javascript, then you are asking for problems. Your website should be completely accessible without the need for javascript. Javascript should be used only to enhance an already accessible website.
The governments primary role is to prevent people from harming one another, even when a majority agrees to harm a minority by making that harm 'legal' through legislation.
That's why we have courts, and why courts are allowed to overturn legislation when it unfairly allows one group to harm another.
Having a poorly designed web page is really stupid, but it doesn't harm people.
Forcing one group to do unpaid labor on behalf of another group does do harm.
Would you rather live in a society where people are allowed to have bad web pages, or a society where slavery is legal again?
As long as the rates, schedules, and special offers are identical between the two
But they're not. SW (and all of the other airlines, now that I think about it) offer special "web only" fares.
Plus there's the whole wait time thing. Sometimes I get through to a human right away, sometimes I have to wait fifteen minutes to book a flight. The web site site is always about the same amount of time.
In the case of Southwest's web site, it's exactly the opposite: they would have to go out of their way to not "discriminate" by accomodating the blind person.
So? Accomodating ADA needs almost always is an added inconvenience to the brick and mortar places. In fact, I can't imagine it being *more* expensive to ADA-enable a page than it would be to add an accessability ramp or make your store dog-friendly.
It's not malicious on SW's part, I agree, but it's not like it takes a lot of work to change ALT="" to ALT="Login".
A book publisher is not forced to publish his work in braille. And internet site is comprised nearly entirely of text and graphics. It is simply one of those things which makes it suck to be blind.
If a government service was available only on the web, then of course that web site must be accessible. But in general, a web site should only have to provide alternate means of access if they value the market they are locking out by not providing that access.
Similar to Playboy publishing a braille version (which it has). They don't have to do it, but when they want to sell to blind people, they realise that blind people probably don't get much out of their normal issue.
Why should Southwest.com be forced to provide an accessible web site? Does Southwest have to send out braille versions of all their newsletters? Sure, apply financial pressure with your business, but what in the world does the government have to do with whether or not Southwest values having blind customers able to visit their web site?
MORTAR COMBAT!
This is almost universally true: Whenever an accessability feature is added, everyone benefits. Add a kerb ramp at the airport, and you can roll your suitcase can roll in without you having to lift it. Add a grabrail in the shower at the hotel, and when you slip on the soap you don't fall and break your leg. Add in functionality to navigate a GUI program with the keyboard, and you can use it when your mouse breaks.
He who snips comments from another's article without including full context...
I didn't say that this is the way things SHOULD be, I said it's the way things are going. And while your PDA or cellphone can't at this time handle the graphical content in all of it's super-flashy often-crapulant glory, they are becoming increasingly capable. A while back most cellphones didn't have *any* graphic support. Now the bloody things are coming out with colour (shudders).
Rethink my arguements? Perhaps you should re-read them. I'm stating what IS happening, not what I think it should be. I happen to enjoy being able to read articles via lynx/links.
Points: Companies want to do what costs them the least money. Adding blind-friendly content on top of the graphic hoopla costs more time
A counterarguement will likely cost them more. Yes, true, quite possibly true. However, have you ever heard of this law or these standards before?
How many web-developers do you know. Ask them if they've heard of this law. Also also them if they use alt tags (probably no, this is due to poor education or laziness). In this and many cases, it's an act of omission through ignorance, not through intent. This court case will probably make the law more visible, and that's likely part of the intent.
As for the law itself, I'm not sure on the specifics. If it applies to corporate sites only and takes heed of target audience, it's fine by me. If it's like a lot of crappy laws, it will be made too broad and can be made to apply to those for which it really isn't needed by lawsuit-crazy money-grabbers (again, above, this may not be true in this case).
Can a blind person use this law against any website? How about even any corporate website? I'm building an anime-fans site. For a large part it's a personal venture, and the purpose of the site would be completely lost without graphics anyhow (anime is generally a graphic medium). I hope this won't apply to my site. How about a site that is for picture galleries, etc. Could a blind person sue on the basis that it's not blind accessible (and would an ALT "boy in wheat fields with...." tag really be meaningful in this case).
Laws and lawsuits often affect not just the target, but are often reinterpreted via precedent into subsequent cases. Thus, it's always good to step lightly around setting such laws, there's almost always some idiot looking to take advantage of them.
Lawyers: Who do you want to sue today - phorm
You bring up an interesting point. I guess I am being insensitive to disabled people when I say "retarded", but I don't even realize that. It's a common part of many people's vocabulary so I really don't think twice about saying it.
If an airline wanted to only make their site compatible MSIE, they would most likely lose my business. Sure I would think it's a stupid decision on their part, but I wouldn't go suing them for it.
Also, like the other reply states, this isn't flamebait for fsck's sake. Mod this guy up accordingly; he makes some excellent points (even though they may be at my expense heh).
The "special provisions" that designers usually make are not to enhance accessability, but to reduce it
Really, you have proof of this, or perhaps saw it on X-files? I thought they were an attempt to make the sites more enticing or graphically pleasing.
I suppose these companies are intentionally aiming to shut out the blind.
Don't confuse affect with intent. And when you post, click "preview", re-read your comment, see where it scores on the I-am-not-a-troll-'o'meter, and then perhaps hit Submit.
I try to be nice, but some people have a fantasical ability for idiocy that overcomes me - phorm
Bullshit.
Several years ago, waaaaaay back in the 90s, we decided to install a ramp at our church. My dad, myself, and a few men from the church spent a weekend and built a ramp that sloped from the street to the sidewalk, about 4 feet away, and it was about 3 feet wide, wider than the wheelchair we had available to us to use as a guide. None of us had any problems getting up the ramp, and none of the congregation had any complaints either.
However, a few weeks after it was built we had a very irrate woman stop by and bitch about the ramp. I happened to be there at the time, and as I had helped build it I was asked to talk to her. She informed me that the ramp did not meet ADA specs and she was going to sue. I asked what the specs were, she said the main thing was that it was not painted red, and there where no grooves cut into the ramp to aid in traction. I didn't see the big deal was with the color, wheelchair people aren't sight impaired, the grooves sounded like a good idea, so I told her we'd make the chages. She got even more upset and said she'd sue anyway.
The next weekend went went back out and cut grooves into the ramp about an inch and a half apart and about an eigth of an inch wide. Afterwards we painted the whole thing red.
Sure enough the next week we were sued.
Both our attorney and the opposing one said that the fact that we made changes indicated that we were aware that we were at fault, and indicated that we'd loose the trial because of that. So we settled out of court. The opposing attorney wanted a outrageous amount for his time and wanted us to tear down the ramp and build it again, this time correctly from the start. They gave us the specs to use, don't remember them off the top of my head, but I do remember we couldn't have a vertical wall on the ramp, it had to blend in smoothly with the grass. Why, I don't know, who wants to roll their wheelchair into the grass?
So we tore the ramp down and rebuilt it. But, since we rebuilt it before the agreement was signed, it didn't matter. We had to tear it down and rebuild it again after we signed the settlement agreement. It was, to me, utter bullshit, but the lawyers on both sides agreed that we had to do it, so what could we do?
All in all we spent around $100,000, between our lawyers and theirs, the cost of the materials was basically nothing, and labour was free, although jackhammer rental was kinda expensive, but compared to lawyer's fees was nothing. And all this because we were trying to be nice and build a ramp in front of the entrance, so that those in wheelchairs didn't have to use the service entrance in the back (nice wide ramp, sturdy handrail, been there for ages)
So don't tell me that "Get the shit done and don't put it off as something to do later, and you won't get sued. "
Now, as to the article in question: "We are quite tired of being shut out of some areas of life,"
Are the blind people unable to use the telephone to make reservations? Are they forced, somehow, to use the internet? I looked in the phone book (I assume that braile version are avialble) and found this number for Southwest Airlines: 1-800-IFLYSWA (1-800-435-9792)
I called the number and they said they could answer any flight information questions I had and you could make a reservation there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (I did not think to ask if they were open on holidays)
-gandalf23@work
These all strike me as "active attempts to disallow entry" - the only question is whether it is negligence or ignorance.
Negligence or ignorance does not indicate attempt. It generally indicates lack of attempt.
attempt : to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect (attempted to swim the swollen river) [m-w.com]
Oh, and again, the above are perfect examples of crap websites and the way things should not be (but often are). They don't indicate a attempt to disallow users but rather just (as above) ignorance.
Considering more books are sold today than before the advent of television, the obvious answer is YES.
Apples, Oranges? How is text-based internet support related to books, other than the fact that both contain literary material? Books are not the internet, nor are the two mutually exclusive) and internet is still an evolving medium. The internet may in fact become the successor to TV though, but that's something different again.
Oh, and books are a *wonderful* example of something that's always blind accessible. There are audiobooks and perhaps brailbooks, but I'd expect the selection to be somewhat less than what I find on a shelf in Chapters' written section.
One of us may be tasting toes right now? My breath still seems minty - phorm
If doubling the cost of creating a website is your idea of "smart".
Flash is often the expensive part, especially in reference to time-consumption. Throwing a nice HTML layout to get things started would be smart in general. If somebody really wants to add flash, then it should be an addition but not replacement to HTML.
Scripting is a nice way to keep things updated, so the flash page and the HTML page can learn to get along with each other nicely.
What's the point of accessible Flash if all you are going to do with it is piss off visitors?
Because on some sites the presentation effect does look nicer in HTML. Sites used to promote multimedia (games, etc) often use multimedia for that promotion. Again, flash isn't for every site (it's often an overused bandwagon), and it's not good as the only method of presentation, but it does have places where it is an improvement over semi-static HTML.
Looking at this site,however, the case is likely about ugly JavaScripts and missing ALT tags. They probably had a crappy web-developer (or an office person who just filled the role) who didn't know much about standardization and visited JavaScript sample sites too often.
If you are a licenced business then yes, the government has a bit to say about what you need to do in order to stay a business for the public good. They already to that to some extent in hiring, and of course these issues primarily affect larger businesses and leave smaller places alone. Even if you just own a subway you need to make sure a wheelchair can get in. Businesses have dealt with issues like these for years, why should online places be excempt?
Remember, the site does not have to "not suck". The site only has to be accessible!! Alt tags might be all it takes in ths case. As long as a business makes a reasonable effort then everyone is happy.
The thing that gets me about this whole issue is that in reality, a site almost has to spend MORE money to make a site non-accessible!!! Basic HTML and alt tags is easy, it's when you start doing lots of fancy stuff with Javascript or layers or Flash that people might have issues. I already hate all that stuff ayway when I'm using a site, so frankly I have no pity for businesses that can't take a time to make a simple site that works before slapping on a thousand layers of crap. Business everywhere, for god sakes lookat Amaazon and Ebay before you think about adding that Flash front-end!!
I'm a libertarian but this is one of those areas where the government can and should do something to help where otherwise there would be no motivation to do so. Obviosuly you have to be careful but with a minimum of effort every site could comply with standards that already exist and have no trouble, keeping everyone happy and the web easier to use to boot.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The last web shop I worked in made extensive use of dreamweaver, and had little problem with accessibility. Macromdia actually provides a suite of excellent tools for checking ADA compliance of the code it writes. This feature is well advertised, and was one of the features that led us to choose it for use by our artists.
As an aside, our HTML programmers used a different program, HoT MetaL Pro, which checks HTML validity every time you save. Mostly it was just the artists causing accessibility problems (flash animations and the like), so by the time they handed their code over to the HTML jockeys it was ADA compliant and just needed to be dropped in place. Not a perfect solution, but we've never had any complaints.
Back to the point, if the editor you're using doesn't support validation features, get another one, or use a couple that give you the features you need. For anyone who is selling things on the web, the cost of Dreamweaver and HoTMetaL Pro licenses is negligible compared to the rest of your operating costs. Suck it up, and do the job right the first time.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
One can make a valid point that all airlines beneift from huge government subsidies on a general basis; however, as far as the 9/11 airline bailouts go, Southwest was one of the few airlines making money before 9/11 and to my knowledge is the only major making money after; I don't believe they availed themselves of the bailout loans this time.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Are you forgetting Casey Martin who won his case in the Supreme Court to have the USGA let him use a golf cart in professional tournaments PDF version of the SC's decision?
Moral: be careful what you try to satirize.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
>>Is there any "common sense" reason to not like Opera's resizing feature?
No, there's experience resizing images in photo editing programs (MS Photo Editor, Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, the Gimp).
>>You don't have to use the feature if you don't want to.
That's why I included the statement that I haven't used Opera, and merely said that my assessment was based on the description.
true, but by sticking to a standard(in this case HTML) people who write software that allows blind people to use the web have a standard to start woith.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is about several issues.
1.freedom of travel.
Not all airlines go to all places. Airlines are a neccessary mode of travel. Being forced to use other modes is unreasonable.
2.It is a large company in an industry that is a very important part of peoples lives, so somebody needs to help the minority be able to handle basic needs for a productive life
3.it doesn't apply to you personal site.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Maybe he wanted to take advantage of Southwest's Weekly Specials, "available only on southwest.com".
No, the whole issue of the ADA requiring ramps and handicapped accessible restrooms was a bit different. That directly affected the ability for handicapped people to go to work each day.
Not being able to purchase airplane tickets online is a much different situation. The web is *not* the only way tickets can be purchased. As long as Southwest offers alternatives (like calling up on the phone to order your tickets), this isn't preventing the blind from boarding their airplanes!
My point is, from the beginning, the web was not really supposed to be a "blind friendly" environment. It's designed around the whole concept of adding photos and colors, plus asthetically pleasing text formatting to content. None of this has any relevance to a blind person.
Now, I agree, it's great that there are ways to design a site so voice synthesizers can read the content for blind users - but IMHO, that ability should be viewed as a nice "bonus", and certainly not a legal requirement.
Once again, there's simply no basic human right to use the Internet. Internet access itself isn't even considered a basic necessity. There are few things it offers that aren't really more than "convenience features". (AKA. Online bill-pay is almost *always* just one more of several possible ways to get a bill paid. In fact, my local electric company *used* to let you pay your bill online each month on their web site, but discontinued it due to "lack of interest"!)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
So are the laws that we passed in the 1960's forcing, under penalty of law, the equal treatment of minorities, involuntary servitude?
Some are some are not.
Should the businesses in the south, or anywhere else, be permitted not to serve african american if they wish not to?
Yes. To force them to serve another involuntarily is by definition involuntary servitude.
How about not seling them a house or renting them an appartment?
I think it would be immoral, but not illegal.
How about making them sit in the back of the bus?
Buses are usually run by local government. Governments must treat everyone equally. So, no. But we are talking about business people, not governments.
Should we permit this becuase to force them to do otherwise is a form of "involuntary servitude"?
I think forcing one person to serve another is wrong, don't you? Isn't freedom important? Shouldn't I decide who benefits from my labors? If I'm not allowed to decide, then I don't control the use of my own labor.
I don't doubt that the website repairs could be done very cheaply, but anything where lawyers get involved quickly gets expensive. Especially when you're potentially defending yourself against a whole group of people. I'm not saying they shouldn't have just fixed the site, but I am saying that people need to have some common sense about what is and is not worth sueing over.
By my definition, the web automated site has to be accessible as well. It's as simple as that. That's reasonable and fair, and if they had done so they would not be sued.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. If a business makes a resonable effort than most people wouldn't sue because they wouldn't win. Because SW has chosen to ignore usability in an automated system with a public interface, they are being sued AND will probably lose (in my opinion).
I don't want the government to mandate technology, just that companies make a resonable effort to make all points of access for the company be accessible. I then yield the tangible side benefit of sites that suck less, admittedly a selfish goal. Companies can even use Flash if they like - after all, as others have noted there are accessibility guidelines. They can even use Javascript in a helpful way. But companies using only graphics for navigation without so much as a good alt tag are already unusable and incomplete as far as I'm concerned. We have building codes, this is similar.
I am a libertarian. In my mind the law is quite clear - make some effort to make public points of access to your company in the course of doing business accessible. Leave further clarification up to the courts. I really don't see the problem when in fact practical compliance for web apps is as simple as following W3C standards for crucial pages in the process of doing business. Companies that don't follow already accepted standards get milked until they wise up. Very clear, even if the law seems vague for all practical purposes it is not.
Sorry for the rambling train of thought, I'm in a hurry.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
See this post that I just made.
Although I agree that devices can be made to aid one to read the text, it's still a visual medium just like how phone is an audio medium yet has utilities to help the deaf use it. However, the web is a much better medium for a deaf person, just like the phone is a much better medium for a blind person.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I don't get it.
In my eyes all it takes is Southwestern to fire their stupid, work-avoiding or incapable webdesigners.
In my eyes, all it takes to follow the ADA is to compile a set of pages without all the fuss - make a script to strip all jpg and gif links, remove FLASH and oher crap and recheck the site with lynx. Two hours of work, instant compability.
If this is too much work for Southwestern they clearly deserve the lawsuit. If this is too much work for the admins they need to get fired as it's trivial to anyone not mistaking webdesign with the usage of Frontpage or Flash.
Face it, the Internet was seen as a saviour of free speech and the possibility to integrate those with disabilites even closer into society by means of technology. Lets make sure we don't lose the 2nd fight as well.
+++ath0
I have close experience with the Americans with Disabilties act, having a family member that falls within it's protection.
It has often been the only reason she has been able to visit some places, that would otherwise have made no attempt at handicapped accesibility. The individual in question is parapalegic with no motor ability below her waist; many historic and natural sites are off limits. However, the ADA required that many of these sites be as open as possible: this has meant boardwalks, ramps, handles, railings, and elevators/lifts in places where there would not have been any without a legislation.
I researched in-depth the effects of the ADA; and found it to be one of the laws with the fewest negative reprucussions. Affirmative Action leads to racism in the workplace; the ADA just mandates that people with physical disabilities be able to use your services in a safe manner, and in a manner that is safe for the non-disabled individuals.
This provision of the ADA was proven repeately with a court case citing a woman with a natural vision deficiany who sued American Airlines, because they denied her a position as an airline pilot. Her case was thrown out almost immidiately; on the grounds that ADA provisions cannot create an unsafe condition for anyone else.
As for the execution, there are few regulations in place that specify the "how" they just give the "why" and leave it at that.
Florida law (and possibly federal law) mandates a 30-day "grace period" in which the business or institution may correct an ADA violation with no penalty.
Perhaps the judge should reevaluate this case before proceding further.
Let's see if I can articulate the points where we agree.
Any disagreement on any of those points?
First, let's consider the 'death by a thousand cuts' arguement.
If point 1 says it isn't fair to force someone out of business for a single social good like wheelchair access does it follow that it is also unfair to force someone out of business by requiring them to comply with dozens or hundreds of seperate requirements, each for a social good?
Is it acceptable to raise so many requirements that the effective barriers to entry prevent people from starting businesses in the first place if each of those seperate requirements is for a social good, and each of them has a relatively small cost?
Obviously, if each of the requirements only takes effect once a business is a particular size, it is possible to start really small businesses without being subject to the requirements. Don't let that distract you. These questions are still important.
Next, let's consider peoples natural tendancies to avoid things they don't like.
Generally, people avoid pain, they avoid coercion, and they avoid situations where they are penalized for doing something they want to do. Sometimes they do what they want and attempt to avoid the penalities by keeping secret the fact that they've done something that they could be penalized for.
Almost all people act this way, almost all the time. It's perfectly natural, and it should come as no surprise that people in businesses want to avoid taxes and legal requirements like wheelchair access.
What isn't obvious (it's actually a bit counter-intuitive) is that coercing someone into doing something makes people avoid complying, even if they might have been inclinded to do it on their own in the absence of coercion. When someone is told they must do something, they generally won't want to, even if they would have done that very thing if they hadn't been coerced.
When we think about the overall effect of creating a requirement in order to create a social good (such as wheelchair access), it is worth considering the fact that some people to avoid satifying that social good who would have otherwise done so on their own, without the requirement.
The overall effect of the requirement then is that some number of people will be successfully forced to meet the requirement and some people will avoid doing so as a direct result of the existance of the requirement. If we wanted to measure the effect of the requirement, we would only count these two groups, as people not meeting the requirement who already wouldn't have done so and people meeting the requirement on their own even though they aren't required to do so don't count. The group of people who would have met the requirement but don't because of the requirement is unmeasurable, and the overall result is potentially negative.
Given that there are a large set of requirements that kick in once a business is a particular size, and people seek to avoid things they are forced to do, businesses often seek to avoid reaching the particular size where the requirements keep in. People seek loopholes because they don't like coercion.
If requirements are based on number of employees, and business owners will seek to avoid unwanted requirements, there will be some (perhaps many) businesses who actively choose not to hire additional people as a direct result of the fact that this would force them to comply with additional requirements. To the extent that this occurs, the requirements have contributed to unemployment.
Ok, than I stand corrected on exactly when HTML got such things as the img element....
Still, it doesn't really change my core arguement. (AKA. If HTML didn't grow out of simply presenting text content, why really use it instead of "Veronica", "Gopher" and other such tools?) IMO, the "web" really took off only because it started allowing multimedia content.... not just text. We had perfectly good computer bulletin board systems, IRC chat, email, Usenet news, and many other ways to convey information otherwise.....
I happen to agree with you that the ADA should be changed. Until it is, people should comply with it. Southwest should have complied with the request in any case because
1. They have a duty to maximize profits. By turning away text browsers like lynx and blind people who can't use their textreader browsers, they fail in that duty
2. They have a duty to create a positive image for the company because that affects point 1 above. Being mean to blind people in a petty way when they could have just developed to international standard and have everything just work is also a disservice to the shareholders.
3. The problem is that today, shareholders have such little practical control over their corporations that management is being reigned in by less efficient methods like the ADA which is constitutionally dubious at best.
The solution is to fix shareholder oversight. Then the ADA can quickly fall into that category of law that is bad but irrelevant. I can live with that.
Yes, yes, the entire issue is much more complex in the general case but for the actual issue at hand, resolving the lawsuit, if SW had just filled in their alt tags *to standard* this lawsuit would never have happened. They didn't need to hire an accessibility guru, they didn't need to wade through the ADA, they just had to fill in their alt tags.
What's wrong with talking about Section 501, ADA, accessibility/usability guidelines et al is that it makes a mountain out of a molehill and makes it less likely that people are going to even try for compliance until forced to. If they know that a normal designer, with normal common sense just has to fill in these normal parts of the spec and he's likely to be ok with the blind textreaders and the lynx crowd, incrementally increasing the audience for almost no extra expenditure, a lot of people are going to do it.
Don't make big things out of simple things and you get more voluntary compliance. That, not some slavish worshiping of Tuftee (sp?) et al is what's needed.
So if the W3C standards also insisted all websites must be written with FrontPage, you'd still support them?
The real question here isn't whether something is possible, or easy, or helpful. It is whether the government has the right and authority to force businesses to act in accordance with political correctness.
.. and not only physically impaired people. Why? Because accessibility measures means several things:
1. There has to be at least a minimum measure of structure.
2. The sites will work better with alternative browsers.
3. Accessibility-issues often lead to convenience for everyone. The drive behind the GNOME-accessibility has made the desktop more keyboard-friendly which is a boon for everyone.
4. We're not in our physical prime for our entire life. Just about everyone will get some quirks eventually. Not everyone will go blind, but most people will have their eyesight weakened, and a site tweaked for accessibility will be easier.