Slashdot Mirror
ADA Doesn't Apply to Web
djmoore writes "A federal judge has ruled that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) does not apply to the Web. U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz dismissed with prejudice a suit demanding that Southwest Airlines make its website more accessible to the blind, saying that the suit would create new rights for the disabled without setting appropriate standards. Judge Seitz also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Web is a 'place of exhibition, display, and a sales establishment,' one of the twelve categories covered by the ADA, on the grounds that the law only covers physical places." Our original article has more details.
make sure all the information on a web site is available as text, then a text to voice synthesizer can easily read it.
Or a Braille reader. I used to work at NCSA (you know, Mosaic and httpd?) and we had a web site redesign we wanted to run by an employee who wrote code, full-time and quite well, and also happened to be blind.
I wasn't sure what to expect, but he had a seeing-eye dog under his desk and a monochrome monitor with a long horizontal Braille outputter in front of his keyboard. If you've seen "Sneakers", you know what it looks like: a long bar with three rows of holes, grouped into eight or ten chunks of six. When a page was read by the device, tiny rods jumped up from inside the bar to create the six-bump patterns of Braille letters.
What impressed me is how fast he could read using this device. What amazed me was that he only seemed to use it when reading code; for normal English text, he used a text-to-speech reader which he'd slowly cranked the speed on over the years. It spoke words in what I could only describe as a buzz, at ten or maybe forty times normal human speed, and he understood it perfectly. Just like learning to speed read, I suppose, except with your ears instead of your eyes.
I learned that in order to make the Web site accessible to him, I simply had to make sure it was completely navigable in a text-only browser like Lynx. If text was clearly broken into paragraphs, images were labeled with ALT tags, and navigation was possible through ordinary hyperlinks instead of requiring DHTML or DOM support, everything was okay. It was really that simple.
People who design sites exclusively for the IE4+ market aren't just naive, they're inconsiderate. A one-time effort to add 5% more code to your site in the form of ALT tags and text-based navigation makes a world of difference to the 5% of people who can't use the latest and greatest technologies.
Disclaimer: I work for the state of New York at Cornell University and am/will be responsible for several sites that must, by either state, federal, or sponsor mandate, be accessible.
:P
Disclaimer disclaimer: I haven't started yet.
I'm surprised that there's been no mention of this yet, but there already are government standards for web site accessibility. They are not enforceable standards (unless you're a govt. agency), but they are quite thorough, and from the research I've done, about 85% of it is simply common sense and good web design practice anyway, with only a few additional considerations. IBM also has an accessibility initiative, as does w3c. Maintaining dual sites is certainly not required, and unless you're the sort of designer that puts flash in everything, it shouldn't be an enormous stretch to conform with them. (But then, it shouldn't be an enormous stretch to conform with w3c HTML standards either. Shoulda coulda woulda.)
Some links:
http://www.section508.gov -- Federal accessibility initiative.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ -- W3C Initiative
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/accessweb.html -- IBM Accessibility checklist
I suppose, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need the courts to tell us that we have to do things like this. I suspect that it is in most companies' best interests to have a site that everyone can use and from which everyone can make purchases. Even if the ADA lost, it's not exactly good press for your company when you have to go to court against them in the first place.
(I'm not saying that I disagree with the ruling; don't really have a qualified opinion on whether or not these standards should be law.)
Not only is this insightful (as per the moderation), but its exactally what happened. I've been foloowng this one for a while, as I once apon a time had to some significant remodeling of a website to make it 508 compliant.
Mod point free since 2001
people who use screen readers to access the site still cannot get complete access to schedule and route information.
As a non-disabled person with a few college years of experience in trying to make heads or tails of MARTA's schedules and routes, my message to these Disabled persons is:
You ain't missin' much. Trust me.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
I take it you've never run your web pages through the W3C Validator. It says the alt attribute is required on all img tags. Note that this is true of HTML 4.01 as well as XHTML 1.0.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!