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.
"A federal judge ruled that the Atlanta mass transit agency violated the ADA by constructing a website that was inaccessible for people with visual disabilities."
Read it here
I guess what makes these cases different is that one is a private company, the other a public service organization.
Why should new laws need to be setup when there exists one already designed to permit disabled persons the same rights as everyone else?
If anything, we need to evaluate laws on a one-by-one basis and determine if it makes sense for them to apply in cyberspace. In this situation - effectively eliminating an entire segment of society from participating in web commerce - it makes sense to me that we should allow handicapped access. What needs to be done, though, is draft an extension to the ADA that specifies what types of sites require access - a shotgun approach would only cause more problems.
While most /. visitors probably use the web as an information medium, we may be in the minority. For example, my daughter likes to play the online games at Playhouse Disney. Tell me, how would you make a screenreader-friendly, low-bandwidth, or Lynx-viewable version of a website that's designed strictly for interactive entertainment without any real information content?
Yes, it's sad that a visually-impaired person can't get the full enjoyment from that site. However, I don't think they should be able to sue to force ADA compliance, any more than they should be able to sue Sony for not making Gran Turismo accessible.
Remember, just because you primarily use the web as an information resource does not mean that everyone else does.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
...we had to go around campus for a day in wheelchairs, to understand the barriers that architects create for people who cannot walk. The focus is on understanding what things can be done to "maintain architectural integrity," and also provide universal access. A similar exercise was done to experience the enviroment as a blind person.
The problem with ADA is that it is very strict, as many government guidelines seem to be, and it is enforced to the letter, not always looking towards the merits of improved accessibility itself.
I agree with the judge's ruling, but... I really wish web designers at least provided a compatibility level alternative, considering different ways that people access information.
that wasnt the point.
The point is that I think it is stupid for *demands* to be made to make other people change their behavior to suit my needs.
The issue is not that there be technology *available* that would allow me to, say, hear slashdot via a text to speach device. The issue is the consideration of laws that would *require* slashdot or any other site to format their page/content in such a manner so as to make it usable with any accessibility device that enables me to comprehendably receive the content.
You can look at the statement as jsut a poor quick joke - or you can read it and think about what it means.
As I stated in my other post - I think that the requiring of any technology to be designed around the few who are different than the population en mass is completely idiotic.
Dont get me wrong - I have nothing against the impaired as it were - but the view on this should be reversed. There should be no requirement on the *content creators* to adhere to some sort of informational accessability law.
It would be one thing for a site to specifically format their content so as to not be accessible to a device for the impaired - but it shouldnt have to comply to some ADA ruling, unless the ADA specs were actually a part of the RFC that specs out a mechanism for forming/making/posting content to any display device (such as HTML browsers or other such programs)
Who says that anyone has the 'right' to visit any one site on the internet? Browser incompatibilities are everywhere. If I've got a crappy browser, and a slow connection I can't see half of anything. If the site doesn't have a non-flash, slow modem connection option, can I sue?
And as for the 'ease' of compiling a completely different, all-text, reader-friendly site...I for one don't want to have to rewrite all the code on the 70 odd sites I administer, for the 1% of the population which is either blind, or unnaturally connected to their "Turbo Gopher" program.
I'm all for readability, and I'm all for the government being required to publish handicapped friendly sites, but it should be choice for private enterprise. If they don't want the extra cost for the extra business, so what? That should be their choice, especially in regards to a format like HTML which is SO heavily visual.
Christ, it's like mandating Radio stations play a streaming "text band" along with their signal, so that DEAF people can enjoy it too.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I wonder what Southwest's motivation was for taking this to court. Alt tags alone would be very simple to implement, so is it possible that they saw a need to take a stand and did so, Oliver North style?
If you really feel you are in the right, is it your duty to do as Southwest did, and make them follow up on their threat to "take you to court" if you don't do what they want? Certainly, their lawyers charged SW a pretty penny, maybe more than their web people would have, so do you think they weighed the cost and just said, "aw, screw it, let's give the blind what-for!"
I guess the real question would be, what would one cost them versus the other, and did they act in the best interests of their stockholders, or did they do what they thought was right?
Final thought: If, after this is all over, they made their website blind-accessible, what a great statement would that be?
Synergy is your friend
Maybe this has already been answered, but I haven't seen it. What if you use Flash on your site, and the plugin doesn't implement the ADA standards. Who is responsible? What if you do a poor job of typing out the alt tags and it makes it's possible, but difficult to run through talking software? There's too much grey area and difficulty when dealing with the standards.
Because any web site is a public place, and
so this needs to be thought out.
You are not required to have your house ADA-compliant, but even your personal web site
is just as publicly accessible as a big company's,
and so should every Joe Frontpage be forced
to make it compliant after such a precedent?
Considered harmful.
Seriously....
Calling: 1-800-IFLYSWA
Recorded voice "Lower fares may be availiable on website"
Human being "Hello this is Ruby, Thank you for calling Southwest Airlines, how may I help you?"
Me,"Sorry, wrong number, thanks."
Up to the point where the recording said lower fares may be availiable on the website, I thought, what a stupid ass lawsuit, you mean to tell me these blind people don't have a phone?
But then listening to that, it made me draw 2 conclusions, either...
A. There really ARE lower fares on the SW website.
or
B. It's just a trick by marketing to whore your info from you over the web.
Either way, SW would be at fault in an accessability lawsuit unless they
A. Upgrade the workstations the phone people use so they can read websites to blind people.
B. Add "alt" tags.
Maybe the judge should consider that.
On the other hand, I do think that making a blanket judgement that all websites must be ADA compliant, or even all commercial websites, given the mom-n-pop nature of a lot of commercial websites, would be disastrous for the economy of the web. It's already hard enough to make money online unless you're a spammer or selling porn.
hm....that sounds like an interesting thing. ADA compliant porn sites....
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001