Slashdot Mirror
Website Accessibility a Legal Issue?
geekwithsoul asks: "Target is being sued because its website is not usable by the sight-impaired. While this story from the San Francisco Chronicle is from February, I've seen surprising little coverage of it in either mainstream or tech-focused media. Is the threat of legal action the only really effective way to get companies to create accessible (and thus standard-compliant) websites?"
"From the article:
'Advocates for the blind said the lawsuit is a shot across the bow for retailers, newspapers and others who have Web sites the blind cannot use. They chose Target because of its popularity and because of a large number of complaints by blind patrons.'Considering how much accessibility and standards support is available in modern web browsers (well, except for that one we all know), and a rising probability of legal exposure for sites not meeting these needs, is there really any excuse for online retailers and others to not make their websites accessible to all?"
Sometimes, it's just not possible at all. My boss, for example, asks - rather, demands - that our organization's website be accessible to them in Dreamweaver. The problem is this: My pages are WAI A compliant and written in XHTML 1.0 Strict, XHTML 1.1, and CSS 2.1. The moment they hit "save" with Dreamweaver, it rewrites half the damn code in the page, changing indentations, switching out tags, and often changing things that weren't really any of its concern in the first place, adding CSS classes with names like "L1" instead of "bluebox" and inserting p tags everywhere. I'm left with a Microsoft-as-Borg kind of choice: assimilate and use Dreamweaver, or be defeated.
I try to create standards compliant, accessible websites, but the boss is worried about any emergencies that might pop up and require their immediate attention. Without being able to pull away from programs that change the pages around and aren't really aware of standards, I may not be able to do it at all.
(Side note: if anyone knows how to force the 'Reaver to leave my code alone, could you reply, please?)
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Hate to say it, but all of this politically correct stuff gets into freedom of association problems:
Considering how much accessibility and standards support is available in modern web browsers (well, except for that one we all know), and a rising probability of legal exposure for sites not meeting these needs, is there really any excuse for online retailers and others to not make their websites accessible to all?"
How about "We reserve the right not to do business with those we choose not to do business with without explaination?" This is about a lot more than just website accessibility- it speaks to (but probably won't come up) the constitutionality of the ADA itself.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Smithsonian sued because they won't let blind people touch the paintings.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
For those of us that use alternative browsers (because IE don't run natively on Linux, of course), can we sue companies whose sites dont show properly or are unusable in them?
I'm unconvinced either way about this. On the one hand, it is nice to have the freedom to use whatever web technology we like.
On the other hand, isn't this the same as the government specifying that people with disabilities must be catered for in real life? Why should things be any different on the internet?
Should all buildings have wheelchair ramps? To an extent, I think so, yes. Obviously it would be ridiculous for all homes to have wheelchair ramps. What about stores, shopping centres and government buildings? I think all of those buildings should have ramps. Maybe it should be the same way on the internet. Maybe any commercial or government websites should be required to make a "good faith" effort toward accessibility. Certainly government websites, at least. I currently have a complaint lodged with my state's election office because the W3C validator returns errors for their website. They've replied to me, and are currently looking into fixing it.
...then we can surely do what it takes to make them work for people,
/. article, developers just need to start
who happen to need a bit of accommodation.
As suggested in a recent
communicating with Folks with Disabilities (FWD's, a.k.a. PWD's)
It's just that easy. And... from experience... I can tell you:
It can really make you appreciate what you take for granted, ie,
finding out how life can be without sight or the ability to walk.
Mind-expanding... a bit like emerging from one of those "gotta
crawl on your belly" caves, on a spelunking trip...
Both are better than drugs, I'd suggest...
XHTML and CSS have nothing to do with accessibility. HTML specifies that IMG tags must have an ALT tag -- but that doesn't mean that it's an accurate replacement for the ALT tag -- lots of people used to use them for tooltips. There's nothing in the HTML specifications against having your site being a giant blinking image -- there are in 508.
... specifically for web developers, the WCAG.
I recommend against using XHTML -- too many problems w/ Internet Explorer (and even Safari will render some things slightly off what you're used to, even when it's complaint XHTML)
The best place for accessibility guidelines is W3C's WAI
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
The best way to ensure accessibility is to simply use XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS.
Given IE's inability to display documents sent as application/xhtml+xml, what is the advantage of XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01? And given the mistaken deprecation of the value attribute of the li element in HTML 4.01 (and the subsequent removal from Strict), what is the advantage of Strict over Transitional if you abstain from all deprecated elements and attributes with the exception of li value?
make sure it validates with the W3C validator, and chances are, it'll already comply with Section 508.
Any page that uses a visual CAPTCHA with alt="security image; blind user access prohibited" will conform to XHTML but not the WAI guidelines. And if all images must have a reasonable replacement in the alt attribute, you can't do a visual CAPTCHA, so how do you distinguish between blind human beings and spambots?