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?"

1 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Yes by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunately, there's a lot of ignorance to fight. The average PHB assumes that creating a website that the blind can use is an arduous task, but this is not the case. If you build your website correctly the first time around, you essentially get accessibility for free.

    If, on the other hand, your website was built by the average clueless Dreamweaver jockey, then you'll probably have to spend money retrofitting your website. But that's the clueless web developer's fault for doing it wrong in the first place. Sadly, it's in their best interests to tell the PHBs how hard it is, and the PHB's aren't qualified to know when they are being told a pack of lies.

    It's only in unusual circumstances that accessibility is difficult when you include it as a requirement from the start of the project. However, typical managers go on what they've been told, and what they are told leads them to avoid accessibility unless they really need to address it. Lawsuits are a good way of getting them to address it.

    Is the threat of legal action the only really effective way to get companies to create accessible (and thus standard-compliant) websites?"

    Don't assume that accessibility and standards-compliance are the same thing. They are not. You can create accessible sites that don't conform to the specifications, and you can create inaccessible sites that do conform to the standards.

    It's also worth pointing out that avoiding being sued isn't the sole reason to make your website accessible. It can often improve various semi-related features of your website, such as search engine rankings and usability. According to PAS 78, the accessibility guidelines published by the UK's Disability Rights Commission, Tesco and Legal & General got great returns on their investments into accessible websites.

    There's more information about that last bit on Bruce Lawson's weblog. Highlight:

    After a program of re-design using third party testers, they reduced their risk of legal action and found, as side-effects:

    • A 30% increase in natural search-engine traffic
    • "significant improvement" in Google rankings "for all target keywords"
    • 75% reduction in time for page to load
    • Browser-compatibility (not a single complaint since)
    • Accessible to mobile devices
    • Time to manage content "reduced from average of five days to 0.5 days per job"
    • Savings of £200K annually on site maintenance
    • 95% increase in visitors getting a life insurance quote
    • 90% increase in Life insurance sales online
    • 100% return on investment in less than 12 months.
    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha