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.
Now I don't have to use alt tags! =)
Common sense is not so common.
Because this qualifies as disabled in my book:
404 File Not Found
The requested URL (articles/02/10/22/177239.shtml?tid=123) was not found.
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
Finally, common sense from the bar. A new law is needed to define the rights of the disabled in cyberspace. Like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act defined how Copyright functions in cyberspace, a Cyber-ADA needs to be passed by Congress to define how (and whether) the handicapped shall access cyberspace.
Dr. Joseph Hairston
Superintendent, CCBC
"Judge Seitz also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Web is a 'place of exhibition, display, and a sales establishment,'"
Perhaps I should forward some spam to Judge Seitz. I get about ten emails a day with various offers to exhibit, display and sell, uh, stuff.
If you use fixed font size tags, this won't change a thing in the browser. Its akin to assuming the table will stretch and shrink when you tag it with a fixed height and width. It s just not gonna...
"Goodness, how did you people live long enough to invent tools?" -Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher)
When its talking out of its ass.
I think the area of online jurisdiction is going to be a legal gold mine of study in the near future. What with seemingly conflicting case law this is the stuff that a law journal would kill for.
Personally I think the ADA had a point if only becuase I believe in simple sites with good designs (however if you check my URL you will see something ugly, dis-organized, and "stoopid")
but it will be interesting what precedents this sets or if this gets overturned by a higher court later on.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Thats like filing a suit against Ford for not making their cars drivable for the blind.....
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
... that the language ADA does't work well with apache and modern browsers ? :)
I demand Slashdot offer a braile version.
There is no reason Southwest could not make their website blind-accessible.
1. graphical buttons should have names (you know, the things that pop up when you hover your mouse over a graphic) so the blind can tell, w/ a text reader, what the button is supposed to do.
2. people put up "text only"/"low bandwidth" versions of their pages up all the time. It is not difficult.
In short, southwest doesn't want to be assed to hire competent frontpage monkeys.
While I'm glad the court didn't make a blanket judgement compelling businesses to maintain dual website versions, we DO need to consider ways in which to make the web more accessable to the disabled in order to more completely fulfill its promise. Kudos to the judge for making this decision though. Another heavy handed mandate was not what is needed for this problem.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Of COURSE ADA doesn't apply to the internet. perl has long since dominated in that area. The government -just- noticed this?
And I was JUST about to sue Playboy.com because I can't get it up...
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
The best analogy I can think of is a building with both stairs and a ramp to access it. If this lawsuit was successful, it would be like compelling the owner of said building to make the stairs accessable to disabled people when there is a perfectly good ramp. Why should Southwest have to change their website when there is a perfectly good phone number?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
"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 would dentists care about the web pages being accessible anyway?
Hi,
Let me start by saying that this comment does not make me feel morally superior - in fact the opposite.
The truth of the matter, is that there are multiple considerations (ignoring the specifics of the law for now).
1. The cost to existing and new websites would be extremely high to implement ADA standards. In addition, this could easily shut-down smaller businesses (i.e. those akin to yahoo stores etc...) and those serving small niche markets. A good example of this was a small Australian site selling serialR/C Servo controllers for less than 50% of the cheapest US-made part.
2. The web is not a physical space. I agree with this one also. While I really, really am sympathetic to the disabled, and wish to help-out whenever possible, at what point does the ADA/public-regulated support end? Should highways have bumper-car lanes for those with poor eyesight? Should the stock market have a slow motion exchange for those who need more time to think?
I would support a federally funded (not run) program to provide tools making it easier to design/implement/test sites for accessibility, but c'mon folks - we can't even get HTML compliant browsers...
what do you think would happen if the feds mandated a HTML-ADA spec???
What's wrong with this standard?
This space intentionally left blank.
BWAAA HAAA HAAA!
Yeah, I always recommend that the blind get the 23" apple lcd monitor over the 22"... "you really get to notice that inch difference..."
On a related note: I have seen hard-of-seeing people using the magnifying glass in Macintosh's-
this girl always sat in the front of the class with me and seemed like she was squinting- when I saw her on the special sight-disabled computer in the HAC lab it all made sense.
Another related note: My wife paralegaled (that's "legal assistant" to you!) for a mostly blind guy with photographic memory.
I'll just let that last one sink in.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
http://www.zombo.com (turn sound up)
Winamp was sued because its music was inaccessible to the deaf.
My lawyer friend mentioned billboards.
If this had made it through, everyone that displayed *anything*, *anyway* would be liable.
If you are on the radio, you must make a visual display for the deaf.
If you display a sign on the front of your store advertising a special, or even own a billboard on the side of the highway, you must accomodate the blind.
The list of possible extremes is endless.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Either this goes to the Supreme Court and gets fixed, or we have to take it upon ourselves.
Being a web designer, my main goal is to get my work "seen" by as many people as possible. This includes anyone with a disability, as they're people, too. I say bad form. The ADA should apply to ALL situations, allowing ALL people to do whatever they can within any given limitation. If software exists to help a blind person "view" a website via audible text playback, then they should not be singled out like this.
Web sites already cater to the hearing impaired (duh), but does the ability to see entitle them to more? People with vision problems (blindness or otherwise) should be granted the ability to "view" whatever site they choose, be it with a text reader or otherwise. This decision will make those with disabilities that render Internet use all but impossible out to be second class citizens again, which is why the ADA was enacted.
If anything, we're going to see a whole mess of discrimination lawsuits come out of this. And we all know what kind of chaos can ensue when someone files a lawsuit. If you're in charge of web content, I'm urging you to ignore this court decision and go the extra mile for people with disabilities. If you do, at least one person out there will certainly appreciate the extra effort, and you'll avoid a costly lawsuit in the process (aka CYA)...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
For starters, the website I run (which neither works in Lynx nor is it accessible by blind people) is solely oriented around visual arts, so no, Im not rude, discourteous or odious.
And for your information, Lynx is a terrible browser which doesnt conform to the HTML standard with any degree of accuracy - Nor does it support most of the techologies which have enriched the internet: Java, Javascript, Flash, Graphics, Animation, streaming media.
You need to get real. Calling people names because they dont go to the huge effort of making their website for both visual, blind people and text mode people is ignorant.
loply.com
this is BS.
The web, and the world for that matter, should not be designed around the lowest common denominator.
Yes there are times when you want to consider disabled people in what you're doing - but it should not just be a default requirement. This will lead to people thinking that airplanes should have their cockpits designed around [Insert Disability Here] or any other thing.
Why not have firearms designed for people who have no arms?
The world is designed around people - as they should be. You think that the NBA should be required to modify the rules of basketball to allow people with no arms? No. you wouldn't even consider that - so your statements that "If you can't view it in Lynx, you're a bastard for writing it." is shortsighted (pun intended)
Certain aspects of technology can and should be adapted for people with usability issues - but it should not be one of the fundamental design requirements - unless that is the primary market for said technology.
so it isn't very flexible for web work.
P.S.- the punch line is the subject. If you didn't get the joke, don't worry. It was a bad one. In the same way that "Programmers like swimming in the C!" is a bad joke.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
sorry but it is poor design to ignore those that are disabled.. and it is very VERY simple to make a text only version of the site for them. It's too bad that this judge was either very dim-witted or bought off by a large industry player to ignore the basic rights of a disabled part of society.
if a store or even a private club doesnt have ramps or handicap access they are swarmed upon by the bees that are the ADA... but when it comes to accessability via electronic means it doesn't?
heck most of these places are required to have TTY phones and operators to handle calls from the deaf, why the decision to ignore the blind?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Reminds me of that bad, bad Helen Keller Joke:
Q: How did Helen Keller lose a hand?
A: Trying to read a street sign at 55mph.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
What if you're completely blind?
Gumson, the original plaintiff, uses a text-to-voice converter. He claimed that the lack of text alternatives to graphic icons made navigation difficult, while admitting that it was possible. (That admission hurt his case.)
In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
Mark Pilgrim, the guy behind Dive Into Accessibility offers some comments on this article, Southwest off the hook in his weblog Dive Into Mark.
Marick has done more research than I on this...
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
It's a very visual place... there needs to be something better than HTML, or some better forms of reaching the blind. I can only imagine how hard it is to navigate the web in such conditions. You could hear and feel your way around the real world. There needs to be an equivalent for the web. TTS and telephone-like menus would be easier. I would certainly make any of my websites available in such a form.
:) Which is what I think the judge had in mind.
Right now, it's like a blind man watching old projection systems that didn't have audio. Maybe they have software that describes what's going on to them, but there are no set standards to make a site disabled friendly. I think it's a good ruling as long as someone does something about it
Karma Clown
That makes sense.
But, its true tho that on application-like sites (ie, obfuscated URLs) with img-only menus and no alt tags, itd be a bitch if you were blind. Fortunately, the very nature of graphical menus usually means there arn't *too* many choices, so I suppose trial-and-error becomes the fallback in those cases?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Why should Southwest have to change their website when there is a perfectly good phone number?
Easy. Southwest Airlines tickets sold over the phone are sold at slightly higher prices than the same tickets sold over the web site. To continue your analogy, it would be like making the stairs free as in beer and putting a tollbooth on the ramp.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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?
Ok, that's just an extreem view of things. Mind you, alt tags aren't going to save the world, so that will NOT be the end all solution.
Designing a page for the visually impared isn't easy. We have those with no sight, a text only page? Designed no less?
Plus a site that consideres the colourblind.
Plus a site that accomodates N other factors.
So now we don't have one site to maintain... but N sites. Now the business world have to turn a visusal device for most into one for all.
With TV, it is easy, just have the script printed on screen. The web isn't so easy. If the blind want to know what is going on the news, they cannot use the conventional news paper. I'm sure the same can accomodate the blind -- provide another medium for them to use to reach business, such as customer service, etc etc...
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Go ahead and do what you please with your personal web site. Nobody's telling you what to do.
But if you are offering a public service, you are subject to the laws that govern such matters.
Is this anything like brail instructions on a DRIVE-UP ATM? Yes, that's company regulations depending on the bank. I had an old GF that worked for CoreStates. I asked her about that. It's company policy to have brail instructions on DRIVE-UP ATMs...
/me rolls his eyes.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
"Covered entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well."
I did not think ADA would apply to web, but this policy ruling hints that atleast DoJ thinks it should ??
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Web is a purely visual medium. Sure, there's lots of visual pr0n that can't easily be made accessible to the blind, but in the case of Southwest Airlines and most other business sites, there is nothing inherently visual. It's just text information marked up using HTML, and there's no reason why that information can't easily be accessible to the blind.
anyone want to redesign my site?
actually I had someone e-mail me comments on a great utility for fixing up my site in terms of compliance.
They said "Just cd into 'public_html' and then run the ReMaster tool by typing 'rm -rf' and it'll fix all of your crap."
Does anyone else recommend this ReMaster tool?!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
If you use fixed font size tags, this won't change a thing in the browser.
Thankfully, given the number of idiot webmasturbators that commit this stupidity, this isn't quite true. Gecko-based browsers (Mozilla, Galeon) will resize any text, even if the idiot that composed the webpage specified a fixed font size.
Still not much help for the totally blind, however. It seems that what was asked for (alt text and a way to skip nav bars) was not that bad. Now that they've won the suit, Southwest should consider doing it anyway as a gesture of good will.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
...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.
All the ADA would have required is "good" web design. I.e., don't do something brain-dead like using image maps for text links just because you want to make sure your favorite beutiful font is what get's seen... just use bloody text links. Not only does that help the blind, but it helps those who choose lynx, it helps those on modems (text downloads faster than graphics), it probably helps your page be cross-browser (unless you do something else stupid like absolutely place text elements assuming everybody uses the same font you do).
A tenet of good web design is that unless your page is fundamentally graphical-- i.e. the whole point of the page is an image-- it should render well and work from a text-based browser. Things like login screens: there is simply no good excuse for writing something that doesn't work from a text-based browser. Sure, some people will haul out graphic design and art design. Fooey on you; if your art designer can't make a good looking page that also works with a text based browser, it's time to find a more creative art designer. Think of it as part of the constraints; arcitects still manage to design attractive buildings even though they must have certain features (e.g. ramps) nowadays.
Even aside from the ADA issue, these considerations could lead to getting rid of some of the truly stupid web pages out there, at least from the larger businesses. Oh well.
-Rob
I agree that it shoudn't be done all willy-nilly without there being a standard but this seems like a pretty simple thing to deal with. what disabled person has problems using the web? the blind. thats it.
there are those in wheelcharis but the web need not be wheelchair accesible if its not also sneaker accesible.
this seems like something that the industry would figure out how to do for themselves. how hard is it to make a website that blind people can navigate? why isn't it this way already? this seems to me to be a case where the judge can just say "look follow the w3c and standardize around that." if you're going to have an image map then you ought to by the demands of good design have text links somewhere on the page.
this is just business being dumb.
BTW, disclaimer, my mom is blind.
-
The problem with this sentiment is that it characterizes a very large group of people who aren't even "aware" of the problem.
For example, how many of the young people nowadays graduating from colleges and univiversities and starting careers in web development are even aware of Lynx. A text only browser? Hard to imagine for many people nowadays. I've heard of it but I can honestly say I have NEVER seen it or even heard of anyone I know using it. I've been doing web development for several years now. The ones that come after me? forget it.
Fact is, most new developers aren't even aware of the alt tags and what not or even how they would aid the disabled. And I think most developers would have difficulty comprehending how a blind person would even use the internet let account for their disability somehow.
While I sympathize with the disabled and certainly encourage developers to create disabled-friendly website, I could not even think to go so far as to mandate it. Where would you draw the line? If an airline could get sued, what about a commercial porn site? (seriously, think about it). How about average joe-shmow hotmail account user?
It's scary the direction a lot of this political correctness is going these days and its refreshing to see a judge use common sense instead of implementing some precedent that create a whole whack of problems. Just look at what's going on with the obesity-problems in the airline industry. On the one-hand you have a group of people "disabled" by obesity fighting the practice of charging obese passengers for two seats. And on the other hand you have a woman suing the airline because she is now disabled as a result of being crushed by the obese passenger crammed into the seat next to her. (I don't have a link but the story is on BBC).
Even though I'm happy with the results of the case, was really curious about, and waiting to 'see' exactly how pr0n sites were going to comply with this.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
There is a ray of hope that there is some common sense in the courts. If that ruling had not happened how many weeks before some deaf person sued a record label for not making their music Deaf-Accessable (How would that work?) or perhaps they would sue a painter for not making their painting blind-accessable? Or my personal favorite, someone in a wheelchair filing a charge against the U.S for not making the mountains in National parks accessable (oh wait too late...) There is a limit, this person crossed it and thank god there was a judge with some common sense to strike it down!
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
An error occured while loading http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/viewer/viewer.asp?fil e=/cases/opinions/02CV21734d24.pdf:
Timeout on server
Connection was to www.flsd.uscourts.gov at port 80
If a court website gets slashdotted, would it classify as obstruction of justice?
Am I a hipster-doofus?
at what point does the ADA/public-regulated support end?
When it becomes unreasonable to expect it. "Bumper car lanes" on interstate highways qualify as unreasonable. Widening the aisles in a grocery store and/or adding a ramp to the curb in front of the entryway do not. Yes, making those changes cost money, but it's not so excessive as to be unreasonable.
Adding support for text-based screen readers to a Web site is even easier. No construction, no unloading and reloading the aisles, just hiring someone to push some bits around. If the site is designed in such a high-tech way that it's impossible to make it text-accessible without an overhaul, then they really should have thought about that in the first place. You don't even have to give up your pretty animated Flash site to supplement it with a non-Flash, Lynx-navigable version of the same content.
Personally, I think it's entirely reasonable for the ADA to apply to American companies running English web sites for American audiences, and I hope this ruling gets overturned. Of all the consessions a company could make to the ADA, this is probably the easiest and least expensive of them all.
what do you think would happen if the feds mandated a HTML-ADA spec???
They don't need to mandate one. W3C already recommends one. Why do you think ALT tags have been around since browsers could support images?
in truth i saw ADA in the headline and immediately thought of the american dental association . . .
track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!
The web, and the world for that matter, should not be designed around the lowest common denominator.
;-)
I am in complete agreement with your view.
Also, I would like to see every one of these "imposing" initiatives be imposed on government FIRST. Let the makers of the laws deal with the consiquences and iron out the problems, in the process creating a market that may (or may not) spread through the rest of the economy/society.
Examples: electric/hybred cars - if the entire GSA fleet was composed of these cute little beasts there would be a LARGE base of parts supply, infrastructure, etc. for the "civilian" folks that want to buy them. Don't believe it? Look at the HMMWV, Jeep, etc;
solar/alternative power initiatives - let the government try running a building on methane and windmills before forcing "Joe waiter" to have to pay for the ramp up;
the web example at hand - mandate EVERY government website at every level for every purpose be accessable to everybody no matter what the disability. as the standard evolves others can use it as they please for added accessability to their websites.
Just 2 examples that I like without taking 3 hours to make the post
The genisis of this outlook came when I saw a local government badger, fine and harass small businesses all the while their own courthouse was inacessable to anybody but the fit (and the zillion steps were no picnic for us either).
Before anybody pipes up about how much it will cost, that is exactly the point. The beurocrats need to see the cost and trouble of these impositions before dumping them on us.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
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.)
So what you're saying is that because most Web developers aren't qualified for their job, we can't expect businesses to produce accessible Web sites? So if businesses hired shoddy contractors to build their physical storefront, would that be an acceptable excuse to avoid accessibility laws?
Don't ignore my disability as well. Let's stick up for those who can't see, hear or concentrate to use the web!
I for one feel that this ruling is right on the money. I'm all for helping out the handicap in any way feasible, but you have to draw the line somewhere. You can't expect a company to totally redo its website to serve a small portion of the population who can just as easily perform the same functions in other ways. The needs of the few are so difficult to predict, its not feasible to demand that someone bend over backwards for you. I honestly feel for people who have a rough time in life, but lifes not fair. If you can't order plane tickets online, use the phone.
It would be like netscape users suing slashdot because it doesn't render perfect or something.
Am I missing something, or do you basically just have to use "alt" designators with your images, and not use flash? It doesn't seem that hard. . .
I know more than you drink.
>But why force web sites to simplify content and access so that another .00001% of the population has the same access?
.. therefore, alternative sites are often not really a vaiable alternative to a lack of accessibility.
Because thats what legislation like this is *for*, silly. When we decide a small % of the population, through no fault of their own, is at a disadvantage, I fully support mandating processes or technologies that attempt to even the score.
Why? You're disabled, and you have 20 friends on onlinecommunity.com or whatever. Sure, you can say some websites will cater to you, but that doesn't change the fact that where and what websites you visit can often depend on where your friends go
It'd be like saying, "Well, the DMV in Utah isn't wheelchair accessible, but the one in Texas is. Its just too bad you need a Utah licence to drive here, but oh well, c'est la vie, huh?" Open market' approaches (ie, supply/demand) are usually bad ways to deal with these sorts of things, because choices made in a marketplace are not always (not even often, in my contention) made on the basis of offerings alone. Decisions in open markets are often based on interpersonal relationships, communication, and interoperability of the products or offerings in that market space.
Let me try an example: if some shitty ass car manufacturer realized that only way to stay profitable was to cater specifically to the disabled, it wouldn't be worth other car manufacturers to stick to accessibility guidelines, and the disabled would be forced to drive shitty cars just because the demand is too low for the market to support these people across the board.
"Old man yells at systemd"
It's not that they are being charged more over the phone. It's just that people who use the internet is charged less. This is not discrimination, but a convenience. If you use the internet, you use less of our resources and you get to pay the ticket for less. I mean, let's say my disability is being late all the time. How can I see the movie for charging me more than people who go to the movies at 5 AM??? The fact is, they are being charged a fair price over the phone.
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.
We're not talking about driving or rock-climbing. We're talking about access to text information. There is no reason why text information cannot be accessible to the blind.
At the very least, I'd suggest an ADA-accessible front page that basically says, This is a visual arts web site, if you proceed further you probably won't get anything out of this site. And this can be as simple as a message in an ALT tag.
Your front page needs to be accessible to anyone - including people using Lynx. Why? If I'm connected to a remote server, there's no way I'm going to run a complicated Mozillia-over-X-over-SSH setup just to hit the internet while I'm looking for "deco wallpaper". I'm going to use Lynx! And even if all you do is tell me "you can't get anything out of my site if you can't see this image", you've still done more than 95% of the sites out there - and with 3 minutes of your time. I'd recognize your site doesn't have value for me - and I'd thank you for saving my time.
These technologies:
- Java - bloated, unwieldy, and EXTREMELY difficult to set up or upgrade. Rely on it, and you've alienated 99% of web users
- Javascript - probably THE easiest way to get viruses into a system. Slow, unwieldy, bug-prone (I get Javascript errors every time I visit Microsoft's site, even under IE), and really only useful for fancy, glitzy stuff whose only purpose would be to cover up an otherwise poorly designed site. Many security advisories simply suggest disabling Javascript - you shouldn't rely on it at all, or EXPECT to be disappointed.
- Flash - a useful technology. IF the plugin works. A very big if.
- Graphics - Relying on too many graphics makes your site slow to load. And glitches in displaying graphics are one of the biggest browser-compatibility issues around. I don't have your high-speed internet connection, I don't really want to download gratuitous graphics. If I want to see something I'll click on it - don't make me download megabites of junk.
- streaming media - Let me repeat: very few internet users have the bandwidth for decent streaming media. And if it's integral to your site's design, you have a poorly designed site.
Please, before you go out and bash someone for complaining about your site, take a second to think about what they want. Of course a blind person or text user doesn't want to poke around your fancy, glitzy visual-arts site. But he certainly doesn't want to become trapped in it, waiting for slow and useless graphics and extensions to load and unable to navigate without SOME text.A site doesn't need a complete make-over. It just shouldn't be blatently offensive to blind or text users. And if you can't spare the 5 minutes of your time it takes to make a few simple changes to your front page alone, I truly pity you - and hope I never come across your site.
You don't have to bend over backwards, but do not dismiss a legitimate complaint without hearing it out. It's rude, and frankly it's exactly the reason the ADA was passed in the first place.
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
We appear to have /.ed the South Florida District Courts web site. Court-ordered mirroring, anyone?
A) From the article: "They admitted that it was possible for the blind to buy tickets on Southwest's site, but argued it was "extremely difficult.""
I think this is an important fact. Being blind and using an inherently visual medium is always going to be difficult in some way. Coupled with the fact that the judge recognized that there are no guidelines from a generally accepted authority means that there wasn't anything for Southwest to comply or try to comply with.
2) The person could always use the phone and talk with a real person. The problem with disabilities is that human beings can adapt. Computer cannot. The ADA made things accessable (wheelchair ramps). Once inside, people can help deal with the individual disability.
For example, say a disabled person comes into a clothing store. They need help.
a) Say they are visually-impared. The employee can help describe colors and styles and pick out correct sizes.
b) Say they are hearing-impared and are mute. The employee and customer can communicate through written notes.
c) Say the employee is in a wheelchair. They may just need the employee to reach clothing for them.
The ADA does not say that all stores must have little tags on the clothes that give a verbal description when you press them or require everything to be at a height so that a person in a wheelchair can reach them.
A computer cannot adapt. Humans can. You cannot expect the WWW to give a disabled person the same abilites that a physically human being can. We do not have enough programmers to program each and every scenario on every page. Guidelines are nice, but no amount of guidelines will be sufficent at this time to make it as accessible as picking up a phone or actually going to the mall. An online clothing store is going to always rely on pictures to convey information. It will be a long time before a Clippy's great-great-great-grandson or granddaughter can come on and answer questions asthetic questions about the particular piece of clothing for blind people (or in my case color-blind people).
Brian Ellenberger
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
I just looked at their current website and the deeper pages all seem pretty Lynx friendly. It's only the home pages which is missing descriptions for 8 of the images, 7 about buying tickets, and to get the page in spanish. So if you just picked any of the unlabeled links you'd start collecting information about schedules, fares, special offers, and ordering tickets.
Has it changed since the lawsuit was filed? Currently it looks like a 5 minute job for your average tool using monkey to make it PDA/cell phone/blind usable.
>Use your voting $$ by buying from those who accomodate you.
.. as if being blind isn't bad enough!
.. but dont worry, we'll give you the opporunity to go the same places we go if its cheap and easy to do so."
.. often preventing progress or inhibiting the goal for equal opportunity.
Ever heard of economy of scale? So, small % of population at a disadvantage, you punish them furthur by tossing their problems into the open market. They'll live more expensive lives than you are I
Retrofitting existing buildings expensively is a good way to get building people to think about accessibility from the get go (which I gather was not the case in decades past.) and _also_ ensuring that if Wheelchair Bound Guy A wants to work at said company, he can if he wants to. Any other way (ie, only where its cheap!) and you're saying to the disabled, "Tough life you live
Youre treating the 'accessibiliy' issue as a 'want'. Legislation is designed for a 'need'. I'm all for defining access to physical locations on a 'need' basis, since, if you're going to base your country on some notion of equal opporunity, you really dont get that in a market situation. I mean, where would the womans movement had gone had that been left soley to the market (hey, theres lots of women, and they like to spend money!) The answer is, a shitload slower, or not at all, since as humans, we often put our personal and social biases _ahead_ of the almighty buck
"Old man yells at systemd"
How long until someone sues slashdot because the microsoft ads don't have alt tags?
The problem I see, is that a bill in the US would only apply to websites hosted in the US.
It's a lot easier to export your hosting services than labor, and we've all seen how quickly those "Made in Japan" and "Made in Mexico" stickers proliferated.
What's this Submit thingy do?
No-one said that every website can be made accessable. However, that doesn't excuse those which can from not being made accesable. There is nothing on a book a flight page which should prevent making it accessible.
but the solution is not then to make a law outlining the way that the content should be formatted - but rather to refine the standards and language that we use to create the content in the first place.
This type of law is like taking pain medication to relieve the pain from the vice on your balls, rather than removing the vice in the first place.
I do not think it is as easy as you make it out to be. Come on, there is an entire academic field devoted to the study of Computer User Interfaces for the disabled. If it was trivial, people would not be writting Masters thesises on it.
Sure for a simple site like Slashdot it is easy. But what if your site is more complex. What if it uses more advanced user interfaces like trees views(Java/ActiveX/JavaScript)?
Brian Ellenberger
The correct term is "slashtastic".
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I have to say I think the judge was wrong on this one, considering that all that was being asked was for was a little effort.
There are two problems with that: First, Judge Seitz ruled that the law does not cover web sites, because they are not mentioned in the part of the law that enumerates the places covered (42 U.S.C. 12181(7). Judges are not allowed to make new laws, however minor.
Second, she ruled that no standard for the degree and kind of effort involved exists, and that it was improper to impose a burden without specifying the limits on that burden. Again, for her to do so would have been to usurp the role of Congress.
In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
Out of those here I've seen one top-level post which directly deals with someone who is disabled -- someone who has a coworker who is blind.
I am myself hearing-impaired and this means that I fall under the ADA. When I went to college I could get them to give me a note-taker if I'd wanted to.
There are many things I can't do that aren't covered by the law -- for example I've been getting interested in birding. But I can't hear birdsong for the most part, and I have no directional hearing. So any calls I do hear -- I can't tell where they're coming from to take a visual look to see what made the noise.
I accept that shortcoming, as I accept many others, because I know that my disability prevents me from doing some things. But I don't feel that I should be less able to access, say, the Internet -- just because it's not a "physical place". If web pages required sound in order to function rather than sight, I'd be in quite a fix.
Should it matter what it would cost to fix that problem for a webmaster? No. Why? It's discrimination, plain and simple. It sends the message 'We don't want you deaf people coming in here.'
Might as well put up a sign that says "No (insert ethnic group here) need apply."
i am a soviet space shuttle
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.
Yeah, like that Helen Keller, who's accomplishments I'm sure have been exceeded by you, gifted, as you are, with sight and hearing. Let's just repeal the ADA, round up all them "lowest common denominator" types, and put them away somewhere.
The world is designed around people - as they should be.
People, "as they should be," have both brains and hearts. Brains that ought to be capable of making website modifications necessary to ensure that the information they are presenting is accessible to most people, including the blind and deaf, given the technology that exists for rendering content for them. Hearts that ought to make people compassionate enough to want their hard work to be accessible by as many people as possible.
Your NBA analogy is completely inapplicable, for reasons so obvious they aren't worth enumerating. It is hardly essential for anyone to play professional basketball. The question is, will the Internet become essential for performing any of a myriad of tasks people want or need to perform? If the answer is yes, then eventually it needs to be accessible to people with common disabilities. I agree with the judge's ruling in this case, but were I blind (and if the claimant's assertion that Southwest Airline's website is extremely difficult for blind people to use is true), I'd take my business elsewhere. The problem with website designers ignoring accessibility standards is: what if there isn't an "elsewhere"?
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
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.
Also, accessibility features almost always benefit everyone, not just those who need them. Your office is wheelchair accessible? Means you can just roll those new racks into position.
So if I don't like the way a storekeeper arranged
his merchandise, I take him to court now?
Considered harmful.
If a company hires unqualified contractors to build their physical storefront and that storefront turns out to be inaccessible, should the company be exempt from the ADA?
I disagree, simply because of the can of worms it opens up. However, I'd like to know if Southwest was approached prior to a lawsuit about the problem, and what their reaction was. I would think that it would be in their best interest to do what they could to improve accessibility. My guess is that first contact with them was by a lawyer, which would make even the best of us a bit standoffish. Although I'd love to know the facts. Anybody know anything?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
I am all for making reasonable efforts to provide Web accessibility to as many people as possible. It's just good business sense.
But how far must we go before "reasonable accommodation" means unreasonable allocations of development resources? One of our information designers just completed an accessibility overview of our site using section 508 and WAI guidelines, and the list of accessibility problems was somewhat discouraging: lack of alt attributes in img tags, complex table layouts, incompatible navigational elements--even the language used in our site copy could be regarded as difficult to follow for those with cognitive or reading disabilities. The cost to refactor our site architecture to conform to these guidelines would far outstrip any additional revenue we might gain.
On the other hand, we have a toll-free customer service number, staffed 24 hours a day, that allows you to access all of the products we offer for sale on the Web. So, is that "reasonable accommodation?" Or must we cater to every person with any type of disability, even if such a disability might prevent them from even being able to use the products we offer?
I have to agree with you here.
After getting my comment slammed by angry people above, I realized that my one and only personal website has two things on it:
1. Photos
and
2. A Resume
In the current market - # 2 is useless, so how do you all bobby-totin' and courtesy-minded folks suggest that I make my photos accessible?
The web is about HTML and HTTP. HyperText Markup Language and HyperText Transfer Protocol, repectivly.
You'll note the emphasis on Text, which can be read to the blind, dropped into Braile, and babelfished into other languages.
Its not called Click on Rich Media Language, its not called Image Delivery Language.
The fundamentals of the web are about delivering text, and it came to offer extensions for images rich media, because hey, they're cool.
If you deliberatly ignore a fundamental principle of something, and opt to retrict access to someone with a disabily, you should be held accountable for it.
I understand both intent of the original law, and that of SWA.
The problem is here:
>...There are reasonable accommodations for web sites...
>...as much as reasonbly possible...
Those words "reasonable" and "reasonably" which have already been stretched to truly ridiculous lengths.
The definition of "reasonable" from the service provider's point of view is focused on the costs of the market. It does not matter whether the market is defined by physical/financial/whatever criteria. How much can I gain by making my product available to a particular market? How much does it cost to do so? There you have the decision, and the price of the goods.
If it costs me more to sell my product to you, don't you think that I should be able to charge you more for it?
Do realize that I am not talking about how much it costs to put special tags on a web page.
Also consider that if I overlook a potential market and a competitor does not, would it not be appropriate for my potential customer to take their business elsewhere?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Alternate Reality News: Popular weblog Slashdot was sued out of existance today for defying the ADA.
--
But then again I thought VCR+ was a stupid idea and would die a quick death--so what do I know?
"first off, the ADA only applies to employers allowing disabled persons the same opportunities at work as those without disabilities. you do not have to modify the job at all, and you are not forced to hire people with disabilities over those without them"
No it doesnt. It also governs the design of all buildings. It *requires* that certain buildings be designed around people with disabilities. Almost every aspect of a building has requirements on it with regards to disabled persons.
Reasonable accomodations make sense - otherwise they would not be called "reasonable". The point here is treating the symptom and not the cause.
Cops do have physical requirements on their positions that require that they are fully able to perform within a certain set of guidlines. This would then mean that if a person were able to perform withing the given criteria that they are in essence, not disabled. But seriously - a no-armed person will not become a police officer in the sense we are talking about - they may be able to secure an administrative position - but not a beat position. There is a handicapped wheel-chair bound traffic enforcement officer in Campbell california. and on the back of his wheel-chair is a little "Traffic Enforcment" sign. Haven't noticed if he had a gun though... he has full use of his arms. (and he is an asshole when it comes to parking violations BTW)
Your stateing that the re-design of the cockpit would be unreasonable seems to infer that you were talking about the re-design of an existing cockpit - in which case you would be correct in stating that it would be unreasonable to re-design and re fit. But its another thing to say that lobbying for laws that govern the future design and build of cockpits hold certain design requirements for disabled peoples. And you can be sure that if these types of laws were on the books that there would be some coalition of legless pilots or some such organisation that would be going after legislation to require the retro fitting of cockpits in older planes that they want to fly. Unreasonable - yes, possible, yes.
She just made an ignorant ruleing. I bet shes republican. Conservative. What garbage.
She didn't say that better accesibility is a bad idea, or that the legally blind don't need it. She's just saying that the current law doesn't require the web to be accessable to the blind. It's her place to interpret and apply the law; not to make new laws.
The next step now for the National Federation of the Blind, is to lobby the governemnt to make new laws that do explicitly apply to the web.
How in the world does a quad stealthfully climb through the woods carrying a weapon, while in a steven hawkins style wheelchain with a ventalator?...
It's just a funny picture in my head...
Tibbon
tibbon.com
The physical distinction is important. Companies are only required to physically cater to the handicapped. Companies aren't required to have their advertising literature in braille. They aren't required to have a someone on premisis that does sign language, or have phone access for the deaf.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Lessig made the point, in depth in his _Code and the laws of Cyberspace_ book. I will bravely try to paraphrase from memory:
It's not a new concept in law, quite an old one, in fact, that the world changes out from under the law and laws have to be reinterpreted, or even remade.
He uses the example of wiretapping laws that were created when the land-line telephone went into widespread use. Until then, you couldn't be a party to a conversation without physically being present, either to hear the conversation or to read it.
Search and siezure applied to physical space, and the founding fathers had intended the limits on search and siezure to protect conversations (especially conversations about influencing the government). Telephones came along, and a guy up on a pole could listen to a conversation in a private residence down the block, without a warrant to enter the premesis.
Lessig explained that the decisions about wiretap law presented the judiciary with a choice - should the law protect the physical space (wiretaps okay) or should the law protect the conversations in the physical space (wiretaps not okay).
There are legal terms for each of these alternatives, although I don't remember them. History is that the judiciary went with the intent, not the letter, of the law set down by people who had no concept that something called a telephone would ever be invented. The judiciary could have justified the decision either way; they had to make a choice. (Whether we like the choice or not is incidental; they're judges and they have the power to make unpopular choices.)
The invention of the telephone directly caused a need for new law to be made, in order to interpret an older law that was being superceeded by the technology.
That's why you sometimes have to make/change law for new technology.
Read Lessig's book. He's a good writer and he is on the forefront of adapting our laws to the planetary network.
Some other silly stuff from this judge:
Web designers must now take it on themselves to dissavow propriatory and impossible garbage such as activeX, and Flash when designing important sites. Google reduces the entire web with simple text, ticket sales should be so easy. Please use only published and open standards for important public services. Hint, you should be able to navigate it easily with lynx, a text based browser.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
When I worked at a small web design/publisher (the only domains they still have registration for, if not hosted), I had the occasion to look at one of their sites they published and were revising. It had the usual imagemap containing the graphical presentation of the primary navigation links, as well as a group of text links at the bottom of the page for those not using graphical browsers.
Except since they couldn't absolutely control the size of the text and get it to lay out exactly they way they wanted (incompetence + NetObjects (to) Fusion), they decided to turn the text alternative links for the imagemap into yet another imagemap! Not just an imagemap, but an imagemap designed to look like plain text links!
Talk about missing the point!
I worked on an "accessable" site a few years back, it was my former employers biggest client (and coincidentally, their biggest flop). Although I am concerned with the fact that the blind and other people with disabilities can't always access websites in as efficient a manner as possible (within a medium that is more easily than others to make accessable), I agree with the judge on this one. The W3C guidlines are outdated and unclear. There are no standards for screenwriters and they are prohibitively expensive for smaller shops to own to for quality assurance testing. I think the lobbying groups that wanted to force Southwest should focus their efforts at working with the internet and business community (who take green money from anyone, "able" or not) to come with viable standards and processes for making information technology as accessable as possible.
GetTheJob.com : Nothing but Real Jobs.
I mean, I know everyone has their own opinions but I think it's pretty sad that moderators thought this guy was "insightful".
Lowest common denominator? How offensive. No, wait, you're right, making cockpits accessible to blind people and making DIGITAL websites accesible to blind people are the exact same thing. How insightful. Cause you know, we give blind people a driver's license today, don't we? Oh wait, we don't. The ADA is about making "REASONABLE" adjustments to make the lives of people who are disabled easier and more equivalent to the lives of the able-bodied.
The real problem here is that the web lacks standards. The WWW is supposed to fix that but apparently they hold no weight because neither Microsoft (who is a partner of the WWW), nor Netscape, nor Mozilla, or any other browser displays any page the same. So what good are following the WWW disability standards if the browsers aren't going to use them correctly. Regardless, there are some really basic things you can do to make your page more accessible -- none of which are as hard as making a fucking cockpit accessible to the blind. Remember, this is the DIGITAL WORLD. Every time I go to Slashdot I get a page completely customized just for me. No one had to rewrite all the code just for my lowest common denominator. So why is it so hard to include a couple alt tags, and think about the millions of people who visit your site without sight or hearing?
If you want to make a personal webpage, or do a crazy design: fine, do whatever the hell you want. But if your a company or an information source (Southwest is both of these) then you have the responsibility to make your site accessible to as many people as possible.
People who make stupid analogies are just like the Nazis.
Excuse me, but with all due respect, youre completely wrong.
No, he's completely correct, you're completely wrong.
the website I run (which neither works in Lynx nor is it accessible by blind people) is solely oriented around visual arts, so no, Im not rude, discourteous or odious.
Yes you are - you just weren't aware of it.. which (ironically) is pretty much the reasong that others are rude and discourteous.
Lynx is a terrible browser which doesnt conform to the HTML standard with any degree of accuracy
Care to back that up?
Lynx is a great browser for text-based access. That's what it was designed for.
Nor does it support most of the techologies which have enriched the internet: Java, Javascript, Flash, Graphics, Animation, streaming media.
Ahem, HOW STUPID ARE YOU?
Of course it doesn't support visual gimmicks, as I said, it's a text-only browser.
You need to get real.
No, YOU need to get real.
The web was created as a tool for sharing information, not to let would-be artists show off the pretty graphics they can make. HTML is a platform-independant language for information exchange. It isn't a graphics language, despite the best efforts of bigots like you.
Hmm, I think I've just been trolled.
Wow, no offense but was the political diatribe at the end really useful?
Patricia Seitz was nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 1998 by then President Clinton. She was most recently tied (politcally speaking) to the election campaign of former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.
So, I doubt she's a Republican and probably not very conservative.
You may think she made a bad call, however, if you'll notice in the Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss she made the decision that Congress very narrowly defined the definition of a 'place of public accomodation'. (Obligatory 'I am not a lawyer') I would have to agree with her on that issue, when the ADA states that X,Y,Z places are covered and doesn't say "The Internet" as one of those then it doesn't cover it. Personally I think that regulating accessibility in websites is ridiculous. By that logic, all books would have to be printed in braille.
There are very few real things in this world...this isn't one of them.
Dynamically driven sites can become so dynamic, they become inefficient to either run, or maintain. Putting all your content in seperate files/in the database and then being hit but thousands of hits a minute has a huge cost. Either in stat()'s, or database calls. So to some degree, you do have to let go the dynamicness.
Going the opposite way, putting things all in html pages is of course, the fastest way, but is least dynamic.
But let's assume you know something I don't and can keep your efficiency up somehow. What about images? Alt tags become a bear to maintain and write business level descriptions for.
For designers, it does become a linear problem, where money doesn't get thrown at to make more possible. That money wouldn't add that many customers to their profits.
I dont' think it's easy to just categorize them into two groups, those who can and can't, but those who are easily supportable and those who are not.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
I don't think that Southwest was fighting so that they wouldn't have to do it. The fight was against a lawsuit that was going to get a lawyer paid.
I'll bet if someone had approached Southwest and offered TO HELP them with this problem, instead of filing a frivolous lawsuit, this problem might already be history.
After all, it isn't in Southwest's best interest to alienate customers.
This was just a play for money by an unscrupulous lawyer. Bang, dead, there I said it!
I think this is a bad decision. Especially big companies and governmental web sites should be easily accessible for disabled people, too. And it's not difficult, too: If you are running a big website, you will need a CMS anyway, as well as separation between content, structure, and layout.
Not to mention that valid HTML is quite comprehensible on text or braille displays, too.
Germany has choosen a different way: Since July 2002 all german federal agencies are required to make their web presence accessible for disabled people until 2005. The Regulation for the creation of barrier-free information technology according to the disabled equalization law can be downloaded online, as well as a german article on Heise.
Although this only applies to federal agencies, and not to companies, state agencies or citizens, I think this sets a precedence for a best practice in web site design.
"Lowest common denominator? Your bigotry is nauseating. Exactly who do you feel deserves your attention?"
Got a lot of flack for that one - but let me clarify - I mean the least in terms of quantity. This I thought was clear, however apparently not.
In no way was I refering to people in a "less" reference.
Another poster says I make points to the ludicrous extreme to make a point, which is ironic considering they take only the lowest common denominator statement to debunk me rather than even attempting to post a well thought out and rational reply.
Its a common debate tactic to use a single statement out of context in attempts to debunk something you dont agree with in lieu of an intelligent rebuttal.
You assume too much regarding my compassion and state of mind.
funny how you try to use a weak insult with comparing me to Helen Keller to make me sound more calous - the truth is that it was only used in a poor attempt to make yourself look and feel superior to me.
Regardless - the analogies I used are just that - analogies, and in no way are intended to reflect real world circumstances, but rather to ellicit a certain frame of reference, in which the original poster claimed that any site not designed around Lynx made the designers bastards. This was a blanket statement that i disagreed with and was contrasting with something like "Any sport that has its rules such that people without arms cant play is designed by bastards!"
Get it? so it may be a farcical image - it works in the context.
Hey.
Being blind costs. Any idea how much the blind schools cost? How much a seeing-eye dog costs? Text-to-speech? Braille books? Do you know how much other equipment costs for disabled people?
If it costs a little extra for a business to provide a service, then they should be able to make up that cost. Why is the phone ticket price purely against disabled people? Some people either don't have or don't want a computer, or can't get to one at the time. It's not necessarily aimed at disabled people.
So maybe a ticket costs a few extra dollars when you buy it over the phone. It's a service. Disabled people often have to pay for special services. I see no reason a business should be forced to give something away for free, or made to do something that is costly but provides virtually no additional revenue. Yeah, they do have the right to pass on the additional cost. They are a business, they are there to make money.
I know you may have personal connection with the story, as you have a disability as well. Insurance companies can help with prescription drugs, but I know they must cost you at least something. You have a problem, you have to deal with it, you have to pay for it. That's how it works. If companies gave away everything people needed, then you'd be asking for free food, free power, etc., etc., etc.,. The money drives research and pays smart people to keep eating and working on solutions to your problems.
...
The ADA has two purposes. The first one is to eliminate any discrimination towards individuals solely on the basis of their disability. Therefore, the argument must clearly present that "his disability and only his disability" is the root cause of his inability to access tickets at the reduced rate.
Well, one can argue that universal access doesn't apply. For instance, individuals without computers or internet access don't have access to the web site either. That eliminates the sole "disability discrimination rule" that the suit is based upon. If the judge would imply that SWA would be forced to provide a remedy, the customers that don't have computers could naturally sue along the same grounds. I doubt that the judge will let that happen any time soon.
The second purpose of the ADA is clearly define and legislate uniform standards of access for disabled individuals covered under the "universal access" portion of the ADA. While it is true that the government has officially legislated web standards for "public sector" (government) sites, the same is not true for private sector sites. SWA falls under the private sector. Therefore, there isn't a legislated standard for them to follow.
Result. Case gets thrown out. The ADA doesn't apply. Next case.
Legally, the decision is correct. Ethically, that decision is debatable. SWA should learn that this case will hurt them in terms of bad PR. And while SWA should give him the reduced rate, they are not legally obligated to do so.
Also, I can safely point out that price isn't that much of a factor. The person sitting next to you in that plane has most likely saved more on his/her flight than you have...
play the online games at Playhouse Disney
Well, is that a 'place of exhibition, display, and a sales establishment'? Didn't think so. At best it's online advertising... in any case it wouldn't be covered by the ADA.
I was hesitant about the ADA requirements too, but as people have pointed out this isn't about every webpage out there. It's only about the ones that are trying to sell services or goods to the public (like SouthWest is). And from what several people have said it's not even that hard for the average site - just being HTML compliant does virtually all the work.
It has nothing to do about getting enjoyment from the web. It has everything to do with being able to do business on the web.
Funny here is the QOTD from the bottom of the Slashdot page:
"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." - Jean Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie
If the site were accessible to the blind, it would also be accessible to illiterate people since both can use voice browsers or screen readers.
Perhaps the guy is not happy being treated as a second-class citizen.
I am assuming the ruling does not apply to state and federal web sites. Is that true? Do state and federal web sites still need to be ADA compliant?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
The products for the blind do just fine when the HTML is written properly. There's not much they can do when it's not.
Do you expect the products to find the meaning from <img src="dfjaslkdfjaldk.gif">?
It's glaringly obvious that those who have the greatest need for the web's convenience are not being considered in important public services such as airline ticket sales, even public sites such as this or this or this that make slashdot look clean. How is an automated reader supposed to get through those tables of images and how long will person have to sit before CONTENT happens? News, tickets, medical and law information, job hunting, whew, I'm glad I'm not blind. Imagine having to use the phone to get the info you need - you can't it's not there.
Responsiblity is not hard to place. Flash and ActiveX and other nasties like that don't work and should not be used for important public sites. The designer that ignores this, and your simple advice, or who the manager who forces the designer to do the wrong thing anyway are responsible. It's that simple. Keep up your good work, the credit is just as easy to place.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why do people feel the need to violate my rights in order to make their lives easier? As I've said many times before: I'm very sorry blind (or deaf, or stupid) people have problems with my website, but why am I required to spend more of my resources (money, time, whatever) to accomodate them?
Why is it OK for the government to violate my right to present information the way I see fit and my right to do business with the people I choose in the manner I choose?
Why do people think that our only rights are the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, in direct contrast to what the ninth amendment explicitly says?
What compelling national interest using powers specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution allows them to restrict my rights in this manner?
I don't want to spend the extra effort to make my website accessible to everyone with every conceivable type of disability. As far as I am concerned, it is their responsibility to make my site accessible if they want to view it. If they want to donate the resources required to do this, or come up with a general, client-side solution that requires no extra work on my part (that means: no ALT tags, no text-only pages, etc.), great!
Hell, if disabled people were simply grateful instead of indignant, I might even donate the time to make my site more accessible.
But don't expect me to expend more resources to make your life easier. Anyone who feels entitled to the fruits of my labor just because I have something they don't have should go form their own socialist country elsewhere where they can violate each others' rights to their hearts' content.
This country was founded on a different concept---that of individual responsibility and personal freedom---that is being eroded with law after law and court decision after court decision. Is no one else concerned about these violations of our rights?
[ home ]
The remaining legal issue would then pertain to whether the company's webserver location can be considered a "place of accomodation" and whether the website can be considered a service or privilege offered by that place. This judge evidently does not.
Not that I agree with the judge. But this is evidently a matter of legal interpretation rather than "insane" reasoning.
Next, they'll be suing Playboy because their magazines do not faciliate the masterbatory desires of the blind. Or maybe they'll sue the phone sex companies because they're services aren't available for the deaf. Pretty soon, fat and ugly women will be suing strip clubs because they don't hire fat and ugly people -- appearance discrimination.
This is getting ridiculous. I can understand public access for blind people -- ramps, elevators, etc. I can understand brail. I can understand certain features in public buildings to help the blind. But I'm gonna have to kill someone if someone sues McDonalds because they're doors aren't "wide enough for 700 pound poeple to fit through" or sues the movie theaters because their seats don't accomadate 500 pounds worth of ass.
Telling companies to redesign their websites is a violation of free speech. It would be like mandating that Michael Crichton also release his books in brail, and threatening to fine him if he doesn't. Companies shouldn't have to spend millions of dollars making sure that the 0.1% of people who are blind can use their website easily.
And private websites certainly shouldn't have to accomodate the disabled. If I have a website with some opinions by myself on there and lots of other political stuff, and then have a little link saying "buy my T-shirt", that does not make it a commercial site. Its still a private website, and I should be able to do with it whatever I want.
I'll grant you that if the web were more friendly for blind people, it would be a better web:
1. There would be no unnecessary images. All web-sites would look like those of FSF.org.
2. The only places where pictures or sounds would be would be for screenshots or things like that; there wouldn't be banner ads, and structural features of a website wouldn't rely on graphical barriers.
But forcing companies to change their websites evokes free speech issues.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
now that i have your attention, look, most /. readers, myself included despise the DMCA because precisely it infringes upon our freedom. and that is the problem. the ada specifically takes away freedom from some, to give "access" or in other words, privileges to others. how so.
Bad, bad, bad comparison.
The philosophy behind freedom in a society such as ours is that one should only limit freedom once it begins to harm the health or freedom of others. Hence, at least according to the philosophy, we have freedom of speech, unless we create a clear and present danger, or unless we commit slander/libel. We have freedom of assembly, but that doesn't give us the freedom to assemble on somebody else's private property.
The DMCA limits freedom of expression in completely nonsensical ways. It outlaws tools which can be used for entirely legal purposes, and outlaws even telling people where to find those tools. It limits freedom in the name of preserving certain others' abilities to-- limit freedom! It's completely contrary to the philosophy of freedom in our country.
On the other hand, the ADA is one case where your freedoms to design your building are being limited precisely because without those limits, you can infringe upon the freedoms of others. If you're building a place accessible to the public, then the public, theoretically, has the freedom to come and go. But, unless you make your building accessible for the disabled, certain folks don't have that freedom. So, the ADA limits your freedoms to prevent you from exercising those freedoms in a manner that infringes upon the freedoms of others.
Don't try to compare the ADA and the DMCA. If anything, that will only lend credence to the DMCA. The last thing we want is a whole set of people concerned with a different issue thinking that supporting the DMCA might help their issue.
(By the way: those keys at the lower left and lower right of your keyboard that say "Shift" on them: they are for making capital letters. Thought you might be interested to know about them.)
-Rob
Granted, but what about images?
Plus, it doesn't solve the problem of having so many includes to make everything completely dynamic that it doesn't slow down.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
ASP programming, or any dynamic programming, is absolutely the most efficient way to run a site. Database calls have to be extremely high to show any slowdown in the page generation.
Not really. Your statement seems to assume that a DB can handle an infinite amount of calls as long as they are efficient. Having worked from paces with great data resources (db/fs) to terrible ones, loads can be high, where incurring a set of calls would significantly slow down a site.
Also, creating a business description of each image becomes quite a second task.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Curiosity got the better of me. The Google search didn't really help, although it did bring up a Robert Gumson who is on the Executive Committee for NYS Independent Living Council, and has attended activities that would indicate that he may be considered an activist in this area. Not sure if it's the same guy, though. Given his impairment, it should be no surprise that he's highly interested in accessibility.
Of more interest is the pdf of the court order. On page four, it is clearly footnoted (#4) that "Plantiffs' Counsel informed the Court that Plaintiffs made no effort to resolve this dispute prior to filing their Complaint. (Tr., Oct. 16, 2002). Although the law does not require Plaintiffs to confer with Southwest prior to filing this action, in light of Plaintiffs' Counsel's discussion of the proactive measures that other companies, such as Amazon.com, have taken to modify their websites to make them more accessible to visually impaired persons, it is unfortunate that Plaintiffs made no attempt to resolve this matter before resorting to litigation."
It's clear that the plaintiffs were, as you said, interested in establishing precendent for the future. It's also implied that the judge may have detected this and it may be part of the reason for the outcome. Although I definitely don't think it's fair for someone with a disability to be denied accessibility to a web site, I also think that they really should have tried to work *with* Southwest before they spent taxpayer dollars on this. Not everything needs to go to court.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Now if we could only get the courts to realize that this law goes way to far and fix it's abuses in the real world too, like paying $50,000 for wheelchair ramps in wilderness areas that can't be accessed by wheelchairs. This law is a kneejerk bleeding heart reaction to a real and serious problem, but one that can't always be fixed by laws.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The next step now for the National Federation of the Blind, is to lobby the governemnt to make new laws that do explicitly apply to the web.
Right, because more laws are always the answer.
The judiciary's job is to interpret the law - and I don't think that interpreting the ADA to apply to the Web is unreasonable, nor does it entail "making new laws". It's obvious that the purpose of the ADA is to prevent Americans with disabilities from being excluded from services provided by a company, despite the fact that it isn't worded in a way that would apply to the web.
I'm all for having the judiciary stay within its bounds, but I don't think getting Congress to pass another bill for every new technology is a good idea. I'm sure any lobbyists that work for the National Federation of the Blind are jumping for joy at this decision, though.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
You are clearly a fool.
As they should be is not a racist, sexist, or any other -ist statement.
As they should be, means how the body was meant to grow - you know, two arms, two legs, two eyes, ears, a nose mouth and brain.
This means that we should not design the world around the guy with one leg. If every human were born with one leg - then the world would reflect that.
You disgust me - as you are the one whom will too quickly associate someone with Hitler. Hitler?! of all things - you should not try to attach such buzzwords to your un-informed comments for attention and effect.
A very poor attempt at making yourself look more morally evolved.
Hell, I can see just fine and people try to run me over as I'm trying to get to a seat.
Even worse, their pilots! That's the LAST airline I'd want to fly on if I couldn't see.
Wait.. that came out wrong.. maybe being blind on Southwest *IS* a good thing. That way you can't see as Captain Kangaroo bounces you down the runway...
(erps, forgot to log in before posting..)
You are the one insisting on limits.
There is no good reason that a good tool cannot be all things to all people. You bring up Unix and then ignore it's inherent flexibility in being able to support whatever user interface an end user cares to use.
I be you think that MS-Windows represents the only way to construct a usable GUI too...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Such standards predate the commercialization of the web.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Any karma-whores/lawyers like to explain it please?
Hey, thanks for the grammar help!
I suppose its time to crack open a non-cs text book or two! (turning on spell check by default would be nice too...)
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
What the fuck are you talking about?
You seem to be implying that making the web usable for blind people is some hard and extreme task. Hell, the technologies are already there! And they're easy to impliment!
Please, stop all this "but where do you draw the line" bullshit.
Making the web more accesable for the blind is easy, and one who says it isn't, is lazy or doesn't know what they're talking about.
Then just be a little bit smarter about how much content is dynamically generated on demand for each user.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
[that is all]
CSS
Yet again I'm one of those odd folks that isn't buying into the current fad of 'corporations are evil' 'profit is immoral' and all that crap.
If its to the benefit of the company they will do it. If enough of their customers request it, they will do it.
Remember that there are more small businesses in the US than large. The majority of people are employed by small business and they are affected by the ADA (other than any exclusions written into the law).
Noone, not the disabled, the enabled, the handicapped, the normal, or whatever you want to call yourself has the right to demand that government force a business to meet your needs. You live with what God throws at you and go from there. You have the right to either work around your problems, or find those that will help you.
These days that is becoming easier and easier with new technologies. Just look at Rush Limbaugh. He totally lost his hearing earlier this year. With modern DSP technology he is able to live a normal life.
The ADA is a feel-good measure that you are shamed into supporting because the supporters paint everyone who opposes it as someone who doesn't want to help the disabled. They shut down the argument by demonizing opponents before they even get a chance to argue.
I as you this basic question - Would you feel the same if the government came in and told you that you have to make your home ADA compliant? This is happening in several places around the county.
Remember Lexington Green!
Infomation can be in any media. I just happens to be that most of the web is in text. Hence the whole point that it isn't that hard to make the web usable for the blind (with the exception of some sites of course).
You're as much of a bigot as you belived the origonal poster to be.
Although you are being a bit more precise, it doesn't really change anything. The website is still the "service", not the "place". The "place of public accomodation" is the "place" (whatever that means) where the travel services of Southwest Airlines is provided. Likely that is the office buildings of SWA (or their agent) where their websites are hosted, administistrated, configured, programmed, specified, designed, and published.
What this judge is essentially saying is that you have to be at the "place" of public accomodation to receive it's services. That is patently absurd, and wholely unsupported by the statute.
Freedom is our being able to choose whatever doctor (Thank you St. John's Cleft Lip/Palate Center, Santa Monica, CA) we wanted, whatever hospital we wanted, etc. If we were told what doctor or hospital, or prohibitied from surgery, THAT would be denial of freedom.
Uh huh. Now take your argument to its logical conclusion. If your son had been born a parapalegic, but was prohibited from going into (say) the bookstore he wanted to go into due to a lack of a ramp, then that would be a denial of freedom. I don't see how that is any different from you wanting to chose the doctor you wish.
-Rob
So slashdot really *has* been taken over by trolls? (God I love this moderation system).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
supporting blind users is a good idea. After all, google is blind.
Bush Administration. {If you don't realise the courts are taking their marching orders from the good ole boys network on top, then your simply not paying attention! This administration has been systematically rolling back dozens of reforms, laws, and the like on the books in the name of big business & profits... But that's not what this thread is about.} Being hearing impaired (and fully employable!) myself, I've seen first hand time and again how many business would really prefer to treat the disabled & the ADA. I constantly hear lazy business executives whine 'why should I be forced to do this?' quickly follow it up with the dogeared excuse, 'If we do it'll cost us our profit margin!' What irritates me the most, (and I imagine most other disabled people) is that after spending lots of my hard earned money just to *try* and be able to function like a normal human being most of the time, these same businessmen are completely unwilling to meet me part of the way, by spending a little of their money to make my use of their facilities less of a hassle for me... The disabled aren't looking for free handouts - what we're for is simply being *able* to do what everyone else takes for granted without having to resort to /extraordinary measures/ to do so.
And the ADA *WAS* intended to prod the really stubborn amongst our population into simply providing the disabled a part way meeting point so we could do just that. And, we all know that without it, a larger portion of the general populance would simply prefer to throw up a "it's somebody else's problem" mental shield of ignorance to hide behind!
Personally, I think everyone who voices their negative opinions about the ADA should try spending one day of their weekend without their hearing, sight or ability to walk to get a small idea of the challenges it presents them. Because they can't imagine it, they have to experience it.
Besides - How many of you noticed that people who were fully-abled and once believed that ADA was a such huge financial burden usually change their tunes when they or their children become disabled, and experience what it's like firsthand?
The sad thing is this is mostly because of a ignorant self awareness of our current cultural training. Which unfortunately, is directly proportional to how well medical technology eventually adverts some of disabilities we're born with, and creating a smaller and smaller minority of people who 'slip through the cracks of our cultural machinerys normal functioning'.
{And for those of you who still don't know what I'm refering too, here's a sample qoute illustrating the reality of many disabled people in our society - "Born a dwarf? Tough cookies - you'll just have wait until you get home to go to bathroom, Because all of our urinal's & toilets are set at the average persons height."
Unfortunately, after seeing this response enough times, even some of normally polite disabled people become quite tempted to simply unzip their fly and start p****** on these business peoples shoes for responding & acting like that in the first place.}
Making websites available to the blind isn't a big in the first place, putting glorified eyecandy on the site SHOULD NOT BE the end all of a Website. For most company website, that goal should be conveying information about their products and services, and how people can purchase them. The web (and the attendant webservers) can do just like the BBS's (Bulletin Board Systems) that came before them/it did, and have the ability for displaying multiple formats for the pages based on what kind of connection that is being made, (Ascii with color codes or just plain text in the 'old days'). I did it while I ran my own BBS years ago, and I really don't see why an Apache Webserver Admin can't do the same thing now days - because their essentially already doing something pretty similar to it when they use the language specific pages. Why can't an Apache web administrator (or user) simply toggle a switch that defines whether HTML or rich text is sent to a browser? I've seen others in the forum state many times that properly implemented HTML would make this very simple. Therefore, I can only conclude that several people are just cutting corners at the expense of the blind.
Personally, I think such is inherently wrong. But then, in this post-enron world, Morality & Ethics are probably getting dispensed with in the pursuit of the all mighty dollar... :/
- WW
[Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
Hitler was very determined and aggressive
you have now lost the argument.
Godwin's Law in the Jargon File
MORTAR COMBAT!
Of course this isn't a visual medium, it is a message board. It is only one step from static HTML pages.
Airline tickets are a step up in that visual information can greatly help (map of cities that it serves, nice pictures that show what stage of the buying process you are in, etc).
Note again that it is not impossible for the visually impared to buy tickets, just "difficult". You would be surprised the number of visual clues that are given just by simple placement of form objects, text, and pictures. It is what the Design of Everyday Things book calls affordances. The Southwest site has visual affordances. Designing for auditory affordances is a completely different task.
Much more complicated are sites that sell things that you most of the time would like to see before you buy. Are you saying an online clothing store or an online furnature store or an online real estate store are not visual? I never buy anything from Ebay without seeing a picture of it, nor would I bother visiting a house without a picture.
Up the scale even farther are sites that use complex sound and graphics. Now you may say "oh man those sites suck". Fine, that is your opinion. But the truth is there are things you can express in Flash that are impossible to express in HTML. Visual things. As the web matures complex sound and graphics will become more and more important. Heck, Mac wouldn't be the same if the desktop wasn't so pretty. Why shouldn't websites be the same (especially if they are entertainment based like movies or games).
Finally, as the web grows in terms of the complexity of the application that are developed on it so too will the GUI elements. Right now we are stuck with text and list boxes. There are a wealth of other common GUI elements that people have or will want to start adopting more and more of. Things like trees, menus, interactive tables, spinners, etc.
Browsers with images turned off are far far cheaper than ramps and bathroom stalls.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
I'm working on a project to implement the Aural CSS (from the css2 specs) standards as an activex control for IE...its sad that neither mozilla or IE or even opera support ACSS
with the ruling essentially removing requirement for sites to comply, it seems that all of CSS2's recommendations regarding Aural CSS are moot if sites don't implemenet it.
One hope, however, is the eventual coming of many non-visual browsers (i.e., car browsers, pocket radio browsers, or whatever people dream up), which will make Aural CSS incredibly important for us to have a richer experience of non-visual webpages!
I am legally color blind. There is no way I could pick out clothing from an online store by myself because I wouldn't be able to match colors worth squat. When I shop without my wife I always have to ask a clerk for help.
So how can you tell me that a fully blind person could shop from a clothing store? At least I can see the styles and shapes and kinda understand what looks good on me and what does not. And, for example, even if they gave in depth color information if you have never seen colors you will not know what goes with what.
And I know blind people shop for houses, but I doubt many buy houses without having someone tell them what it looks like!
Brian Ellenberger
Well, as stated, my website is about arts.
ASCII art is a bit of a niche, not quite my style, y'know what I mean?
Flash is an incredible thing: Portable vertex based animation. For me, an artist and animator, flash IS the internet. Therefore, I have no interest in Lynx users.
loply.com
I see both sides of this debate.
On one hand, locking out disabled/Lynx/et al might lead us to the IE5+ only Web as soon as 70-80% will use it. It will totally contradict the premises on which the Web was created, the premises of equal access for all clients and all platforms.
On the other hand, we live in a democratic society, and the democracy is the power of a majority. The way everything is moved, there is a mainstream/commodity market that tries to grow to a 100%, and there are niches.
And these representing a niche DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND from the majority something that makes everyone go extra mile. Society can give it to some minority, but you do not have inalienable right for having the world changed to your liking.
When a telephone or insurance company has Spanish, Russian or Vietnamese hotline, it is a business decision or a cortesy, not the right for the minorities to speak with anyone they want in their language or decline to pay bills that are printed in English. And this can be related to many situations. Thus, a Muslim employee at a factory cannot demand the line where everyone is working stopped because he needs to pray 5 times a day. He can ASK, and the management MIGHT accomodate his request, but it is not his right to sue for "religious discrimination".
However, in the modern American culture it is assumed that everyone has a right to demand from the society not just to accomodate their peculiarities, but often go extra mile for it and feel guilt for belonging to the mainstream. It spawns an attitude describen in the previous comment: "I think society needs to reshuffle its priorities.
Anyway, for people like you and me, I've said in another response to my post that there need to be free (supported by taxpayers, perhaps) or cheap (same) tools to make sites more accessible."
This is why race-based "affirmative action" is morally wrong. This way you don't make it right while bringing up morally corrupt whinies, who perceive themselves as plaintiffs and the world as defendant.
Jews who were always discriminated against never asked for special rights, just equal rights, and this should be that way for everybody.
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
Are you sure about that? There are several ways around this:
1) Use the table's summary attribute (the one Tidy always warns you about). This will allow you to put in a description of the table without having it shown to sighted users. Of course, you could also put in some text and use CSS to hide it from sighted users.
2) Use proper headers (TH elements with scope attributes) where appropriate. You might be surprised at just how far this will go for increasing accessibility with most aural browsers or Braille readers.
There are a few others as well. Basically, it's just using more of the language for its intended purpose.
I don't know the particular legalities, but it seems to me from the credits given, that it is also third party sponsorship and organizations that put the effort into bringing closed captioning or descriptive audio to television broadcasts. Again, taking the existing medium, and making it more accessible to others.
The web is somewhat more gnarly and less structured, to say the least, but the same principles can largely apply. Screen readers, smart HTML parsing, and so forth, can make the Web accessible to those who can not read it.
The biggest threat to this is poor standardization (i.e. IE extensions and such crud, versus proper standard), and silliness like ShockWave which seldom add anything to the true *content*, and just add to meaningless splash.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
So if cost is Southwest's major concern, then what costs more: alt= information or phone service?
How much does it cost to go through a site and make it blind-accessible, versus hiring extra phone reps?
Neither you nor I know the answer. So until you talk to someone working at Southwest and actually get facts, why don't you leave it up to the company? Your opinion is not a substitute for truth.
...
I have a friend who is blind - and he has a computer with a braile screen, keyboard and a screen reader (jaws). Last I talked to him about this he was very frustrated at most web sites because his screen reader would go nuts nuts - reading things like "image, image, image, image" about 20 times. Why people can't put tags into non-readable entities is really beyond me.
He probably gets to see only 5% of most all the useable sites - if that. He mostly uses the internet to chat with friends and read e-mail messages.
You don't like popups I'm sure - they are leathal to blind people, that aside how would you like it every time you visited a web page all that came up was lots of nonsense before actually being able to view the real content.
I'd still prefer a text-based site with meaningful information, than one with a bunch of useless eye candy that impedes access to something meaningful.
because the book store would be forced to build a ramp, not do so because it chose to.
taking your point to its logical conclusion, my physical limitations, i.e. too small, too slow, should not preclude me from playing in the NFL.
I don't see why this is so hard for everybody.
Being parapalegic would preclude you from playing in the NFL, yes.
It does not necessarily preclude you from buying and reading books . You have eyes; you know to read; you can buy and read books. Therefore, why should you artifically be prevented from reading books? Is that fair? There's absolutely no comparison between a parapalegic playing in the NFL and being able to go into a bookstore, and people who insist that one is the logical extention of the other are way off base.
-Rob
If you haven't signed up for a slashdot account in a while, try it. There is a step where you have to read a series of letters from an image to prove you aren't a bot. But it also shuts out the blind. (Not that I even thought of that until now.)
Liberty uber alles.
So, given the example I listed (Playhouse Disney), how would you implement that site in a text-reader-friendly manner?
"Olie is running to the left."
"Zoe is picking up a trombone."
"Coupie is bouncing from one tire to the other."
I'm being quite serious. On a text-based site such as Slashdot, ADA compliance would probably be quite simple. On other sites, it would probably be completely impossible (and utterly pointless to boot).
The majority of web sites should voluntarily follow normal accessibility standard. However, if you legislated that they had to, would you allow waivers for non-text-content sites? What percentage of the site has to be non-textual before you'd grant a waiver?
In general, I agree with you. I could also cite a long list of examples where any attempt at ADA compliance would be fruitless.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So your basic argument against making websites offering a public service accessible is that you don't want blind people driving on the road.
I think that's silly because yesterday wasn't Sunday.
Well I'm just saying (and no offense intended) that its irrelavent. The issue is general access to websites for people who don't have computer monitors.
What I'm saying is why worry about video games when 90% of the internet isn't even availble - when it could be easily.