Slashdot Mirror
Should Online Stores Be Subject To ADA?
prostoalex writes, "HTML tutorials usually mention alt tags for images and noscript tags as something optional that a Web designer should add to a site for the crawlers and users browsing with graphics or JavaScript turned off. However, a recent lawsuit against Target by the National Federation of the Blind accuses the retailer of not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since Target's online store is unbrowsable with a screen reader, the nation's 200,000 blind people who go online cannot become paying customers, the NFB contends. From the article: 'In denying Target's motion to dismiss the suit two months ago, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel... held that the law's accessibility requirements applied to all services offered by a place of public accommodation. Since Target's physical stores are places of public accommodation, the ruling said, its online store must also be accessible or the company must offer equally effective alternatives.' Does the judge's name ring a bell? Yes, it's the same Marilyn Hall Patel who handled the RIAA's case against Napster in 2001." Web builders and tools may need to start brushing up on the Web Accessibility Initiative.
Maybe finally we can put a stake through the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Flash-only sites.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Nope. Deaf dude calls relay operator, relay operator calls store and "translates" between.
Unfortunately, use of a relay operator is becoming common for scammers, etc. to hide accents and out of area calls.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Well, in California, we have a statewide, free, public relay service so that TDD users can communicate with anyone with a phone with no problem, so its not an issue. I thought that was fairly common, and not unique to California.
That's an interesting parallel case. However, in this case, the law requires that the PHONE company (and hence you) find a way to make the PSTN work for the deaf. There are organizations (names escaping me right now) that have non-deaf operators that provide the interface between the deaf and the non-deaf worlds: if you are deaf, you call these operators via TDD, and they make a voice call to the destination, translating back and forth.
Should the law perhaps require ISPs to fund a similar service for the web? The blind call up the service, and operators with special training "translate" the essentials of the page into spoken word? I don't think that's a great idea, but until the technology of screen readers and authoring tools catches up, maybe they should?
There are many examples of this foolishness. Here in San Francisco the ADA-compliant public self-cleaning restrooms are so large inside that they are mainly used by hookers as a convenient place to deliver a blow job. All apartments recently constructed here in the city have ADA-compliant bathrooms large enough to U-turn a fire truck. Let me tell you that it really impinges on your 800-square-foot apartment when your bathroom is statutorily required to be at least 100 square feet. And even a remodel triggers the ADA: in my former office, we had obnoxious ADA-compliant bathrooms which were both huge and furnished with uncomfortably-tall ADA-compliant toilets.
At all the new parks in the city, the picnic tables are 1) missing one of the seats and 2) have tables mounted neck-high so you can run a wheelchair underneath them. The furniture is very uncomfortable for the 99.9% of the normally-abled public.
The ADA had the right idea but the implementation has been a nuisance.
(Or they could just make a .html version, but ...)