Slashdot Mirror
Dept. of Justice Considers Web For ADA
beetle496 noted a blog entry saying "The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the Accessibility of Web Information and Services Provided by Entities Covered by the ADA (i.e., State and Local Government Entities and Public Accommodations). You can read the fact sheet, or the entire notice. In short, the Department is seeking comments on their desire to revise regulation to 'establish specific requirements for State and local governments and public accommodations to make their websites accessible to individuals with disabilities.' The Department is seeking specific comment on many things including the standards they should adopt, and if there should be any exemptions for certain entities (e.g., small business) before they publish their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This is amazing news! The impact that this will have for individuals with disabilities cannot be overemphasized. It is time for our digital society to forever include individuals of all abilities. The period of public comment is open for 180 days."
I do believe it's good for disabled folks to have an alternate method of accessing a website. However, I hope this doesn't add red tape to the creation of websites that are only designed for a visual experience (e.g. flash based graphical interfaces).
As long as website owners are only required to present alternate experiences for disabled users, and not design websites so that it's the same experience for everyone, this will be a good change (and one that should already be taken care of by a good design).
Except without the spinning gifs and animated backgrounds and lame MIDI loops?
SOLD!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
read headline as ADA for web -- immediately thought they were going to push an interpreted ADA as a Javascript replacement -- need more sleep
and yet they are collecting comments on establishing more standards that go beyond 508?
Most of the pics aren't tagged, the graphical navigation tabs are useless to a screen reader, and the page is full of popup javascript.
It contains an enbedded alert that may be read off by an interpreter: "Regulations.gov will undergo a scheduled maintenance outage and will be unavailable Saturday September 19, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (ET)" Thanks for wasting time with last year's outage info.
Come on, can't government provide GOOD examples of accessible resources ESPECIALLY when gathering suggestions for how current rules and regs can be improved?
"Ay - Nope - Er."
While the ADA rules are a good thing in general, this looks like a "DCMA" type application. Publish a website and if its not "friendly" to the impaired -- visual or auditory -- you will get caught in DOJ investigation.
Those with sight and hearing loss stand to benefit the most from this. Those with profound mental retardation? Not so much.
This is good news for AIs all over the web. A web site that is ADA compliant is much easier for a program to navigate than one that requires screen scraping and OCR. The bad news is that botnets can also run AIs, and making government information more available will make things easier for scammers.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Never mind the Apple/iOS lacking Flash flamewar... this is THE reason Flash should be eliminated as soon as possible.
Flash sites are almost universally hostile to anyone using a screen reader or other accessibility device. The sooner we can do away with Flash, if only so that blind people are on an equal footing on the web, the better.
I should clarify: ALT tags exist for many of the pictures but they aren't useful tags. One is "close". As in close the door? As in close but no cigar? Tagging a pic with "logo" doesn't tell the user what distinguishes it from other logos.
We already have something like that in the Netherlands: http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/.
there's always facebook
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I agree with it; governments SHOULD be accessible to all. Note this doesn't cover private web sites. Most private web sites (by "private" I mean non-government) are shooting themselves in the foot if their sites aren't readily accessible to everyone.
Er, I must plead guilty, though. My Quake site (1997-2003) had spinning gifs (but not where they would interfere wiht reading the text), the background animated while loading (a Matrix-like pattern of ones and zeros that moved and disappeared), and no Midi loop, but a .wav of an edited to 20 second theme from the game. Rounded corners... But it was geared to the games Quake and Quake II, so it wasn't out of place. And it was accessible to the blind; I wrote the HTML and javascript in such a way that screen readers should have been able to parse, and images all had ALT tags.
OMFG, I created web 2.0. What have I done?? Please forgive me everybody! I promise never to do it again!
Free Martian Whores!
So like...I need to put ramps on my blog now?
It's a good thing our governments have money to burn during this prosperous time. I am all for access to the handicapped, but how much will this cost tax payers.
Before they can even think about making their web sites accessible for those with disabilities, they need to make the sites accessible for the general public. Nearly every time I have needed to find some information at the state level, I've had to sort through pages of outdated info, buried 4 or more links deep. I can only imagine what this process is like through a screen reader or other adaptive technology.
Yeah, right. Next you'll tell us that Windows 7 was your idea.
And just imagine - there will at least have to be a way to navigate all sites WITHOUT FLASH.
WITHOUT FLASH MAN!!!!
Put the On-Off switch for the box on the keyboard. Apple is really bad about hiding switches and stuff. BTW, I am so disabled that folks are waiting for the movie rather than read the manual.
It does cover private websites just like the ADA and various smoking bans cover private businesses. Do they care about your Quake website? No, but do keep in mind that there's a difference between 'private,' in the non-government sense, and 'personal.' 'Personal' websites are the ones that won't be affected.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
More likely there will be a wave of tools to facilitate making two versions of a web site and maintaining them in parallel. The marketing drones aren't likely to release their stranglehold on the web and let its original concept breath any time soon.
Good lord, no. I saw lots of websites in the 90s that were the opposite of good disabled-accessible design. Flashing red text on a green background? Try reading that if you are colorblind. Consistent and flagrant misuse of tables to format text? Ugh. Way to mess up a html reader.
Unfortunately, taking a page that was poorly designed and redoing it to be more accessible often means (in my humble experience, anyway) rewriting much of it.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Hi, I am deaf. I would like to sue EMI, Sony, Universal etc. so that they make music more accessible to people such as myself.
Hi, I am blind. I would like to sue Sony, Universal, Warner, and especially Playboy, etc. so that they make movies and magazines more accessible to people such as myself.
Hi, I am a human. I would like to sue God, the Creator, etc. so that they make me into a space dwelling, universe traveling, immortal, so that everything in existence is more accessible to people such as myself.
Hi, I'm ground.zero.612. I would like to say that my life is filled with what I consider my fair share of hardships and disappointments. I have learned that I am different than others, and that my abilities and disabilities do not always mesh.
Everyone cannot do everything they think and dream. IMHO it is a wasted endeavor trying to appease people's pipe dreams. In other words "oh no the handicaps can't use something designed from the ground up to be used by the not handicapped."
On a related note, I am looking for seed capital to begin the design and production of my quadriplegic accessible extension ladders. Any takers?
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
I was going to comment until, while adding my personal data, I noticed that the state pull-down was alphabetized incorrectly. Now, I am not perfect but if I was browsing anywhere else I would immediately be worried I was at a site for harvesting personal information and not a government entity.
Son, the job of the bureaucracy is to CREATE regulations, NOT follow them.
The largest problem with the ADA is that it never defined what a disability was. There are people with mental disabilities. Does your website have to be edited to a 3rd grade level?
What if someone is illiterate?
What if they don't speak English?
What if someone is physically unable to click - how will a website cater to that need?
There has been software to read websites to the blind for years, how will this differ?
I agree with it; governments SHOULD be accessible to all. Note this doesn't cover private web sites. Most private web sites (by "private" I mean non-government) are shooting themselves in the foot if their sites aren't readily accessible to everyone.
The same arguement could be made for handicapped spaces. Public (as you define it) should have such spaces, but I argue that the extreme requirements created a lucrative litigation ecosystem surrounding it that truly doesn't serve the needs of either the handicapped or the businesses.
I just wish the regulations were less strict especially when I see certain businesses with a dozen empty parking spaces or the moral crusaders who get pissed off at seeing a 25 year old park in a handicapped space. (Yes, Mr. called the police, a 25 year old can have had surgery and have a temporary placard, it isn't just for the morbidly obese and octogenarians.)
Not sure if I had a point to this rant. I guess it's just in areas where you could have flexibile handicapped spaces. IE: for a residential building, it doesn't make any sense if you have handicapped spaces if none of the residents are handicapped, and that if requested, a temporary handicap space could be designated for guests (if parking is really that tight) or semi-permanently added if it is for one of the residents.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Wanna bet?
If a business doesn't cater to anyone handicapped (I guess it could happen), or just is ignorant enough to not do so and lose that business, that should be up to them. No one is holding a gun to the person accessing a site, nor should they be holding a gun to a private business to cater to any specific crowd.
Ding ding ding.
In my hometown, a hardware store couldn't afford to put in an ADA-compliant ramp for the one guy in town who used a wheelchair. When they said as much, he sued. The store, in the family for 2 generations, closed down because the owner couldn't carry the expense of the loan he needed for building the ramp- and the cost of the lawsuit. Result: he ended up working for nearly minimum wage at Walmart and couldn't afford to put his daughters through college. Another result: his two employees lost their jobs. The landlord lost a tenant (the store sat unoccupied for 2 years, in part because everyone knew that the first business to move in would get sued for not having an ADA-compliant ramp.)
He was not alone.
Some people just seem to forget that the world doesn't owe them anything. If you're injured or born without the ability to walk, that's nobody's problem except your own. "How cruel", you say. But where do we stop in defining disabilities? If I have autism, does that mean I can sue a store for being too noisy and crowded? If I have a peanut allergy, does a Thai restaurant have to give you a hermetically sealed room and special food stored, prepared, and cooked away from everything else?
Move to a city where businesses can afford good handicapped access. Hire someone to spend an hour each week getting your groceries. There are hundreds of solutions other than forcing your problems onto others.
Please help metamoderate.
Try reading that if you are colorblind
Actually it's quite simple, grey on darker grey. I feel sorry for the people who aren't colorblind, look at the red/green text, and wish that THEY were colorblind.
But don't worry, being colorblind isn't considered a disability. Even though you will be disqualified from a growing list of jobs.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Yes, but even that blinking red on green text was conveyed to your browser in a format easy for a screen-reader to pick up. Today I've seen companies in the healthcare industry (i.e. who should expect to deal with a lot of older people with deteriorating vision) use white-on-light-blue raster images to display text. (No, they didn't use alt tags. Yes, it would be retarded even if they had.)
I guess Apple was just ahead of the regulatory curve.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
It seems like a no-brainer to make applications and websites more usable with assistive technologies. Why? Because when you do you get a three-for-one.
1) It's just a nice thing to do for people with disabilities. And if you're a business, that's a small but not insubstantial part of the population that your competitors may be ignoring.
2) It makes you more visible to search engines, agents, and other "semantic web" "users". A lot of the information added to web pages for the sake of assistive technologies also serves as the semantic information that automated crawlers love for figuring out exactly what your web page is. More semantic info makes you Google's BFF.
3) It makes automation easier. Most automation programs use the same interfaces as assistive technologies. The easier it is for assistive technologies to use your application, the easier it is to automate. Reduce maintenance time for your test automation and improve your accessibility at the same time!
If all you need to do to get these benefits is add a little bit of hidden information, why wouldn't you do it?
The most common form of colorblindness is inability to distinguish red from green. Most other forms of colorblindness likewise involve specific pairs of colors being indistinguishable. From your comment it sounds like you see only shades of grey; that would be an extremely rare condition and is far from what is typically meant by the word "colorblind".
Summary content copied verbatim from http://webaim.org/blog/dept-of-justice-considers-web-for-ada/ without attribution. Shame on you, beetle496!
Because I, ah, have a friend who might be interested in hearing the blow-by-blow description of what's going on.
The first thing government tends to do after creating regulations is to grant itself exemptions from the same.
It will be a great day that I can view a website and not suffer an adverse reaction to all the Flash content. Symptoms include confusion and rage at the creator of the site.
Using the logic they are proposing here, restaurants should not be allowed to have printed menus because some people can't see them, not allowed to have audio menus because some people can't hear them, not be allowed, in short, to have any menu short of a computer that can adapt to any combination of disability. That's simply wrong. Restaurants must allow everyone to order and be served but it's insane to think they would use the same media or tools for each.
The DOJ is wrong, and they are also outside the letter and spirit of the ADA. The ADA requires that those with disabilities have a means of access. It does not state that every means of interaction must be open to all.
A website provides information to people who can see and read. If you can't do that, call. If you can't do that, have someone do it for you.
A business (or anyone subject to the ADA) should provide access to all... but a website is just part of the business's compliance tool set. They can have the most accessible website on the 'net and still be out of ADA compliance, or they can have the least accessible and be totally in compliance with the ADA.
Having clueless people at the DOJ make up nonsensical rules is NOT a good thing. Post your comments against this ill-conceived effort now.
You are being SO FREAKING unfair,
"In 1970, Playboy became the first gentleman's magazine to be printed in braille."
and they deserve SERIOUS kudos for that..
they have been doing it for 40! years, and you just GUESSED that they were in default?
Damn man.. give Playboy their props.. who the hell cared about the disabled in the 70's?
Playboy, thats who....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
It'll be great for those it benefits, but what about the further infringement on the right of a person to put what they please on their own website? If they don't cater to a particular audience, that audience doesn't have to visit the site. Not that this is specific to this aspect of the ADA; the same applies to brick-and-mortar stores as well. What gives anyone the right to use legal force against a business owner who doesn't configure his property so that it caters to particular people?
(Here come the negative mods in 3...2...1...)
Video that is streamed over the internet, that would be required to have closed captions if transmitted over the airwaves, should be required to transmit those captions.
Eg, NBC captions all (or almost all) of their content when broadcast, but only a limited selection of NBC content is captioned on hulu.com.
Even worse, Netflix (www.netflix.com) transmits content that almost universally has closed captioning data available, but transmits none of it when internet streaming.
--why?
The most common form of colorblindness is inability to distinguish red from green. Most other forms of colorblindness likewise involve specific pairs of colors being indistinguishable. From your comment it sounds like you see only shades of grey; that would be an extremely rare condition and is far from what is typically meant by the word "colorblind".
Yeah but if I said all that it would have ruined the joke.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Only physical places can be public accomodations.
That's even better. That way, sighted users can use the clean, easy-to-use blind version as well!
The real problem with the current system (IMO) is that--as always--regulation and government-created scarcity has lead to efforts to game the system and unintended consequences out the wazoo.
This results in things like a morbidly obese patient slipping the doctor a $100 and getting a handicapped placard. So the fatty who most needs to walk the extra 100 ft a week now parks as close to the ice cream aisle as possible. Or to people either holding on to their placards after they've expired or making fake ones.
When I worked in construction in L.A (putting myself through college) with my dad's company I saw two projects canceled because of the cost of complying with the ADA. One was a parking structure where the powers-that-be decided that it wasn't sufficient to have the "correct" number of handicapped spaces on the ground level--there must be an elevator in case some handicapped person parked in a non-handicapped spot on the 2nd floor and couldn't use the stairs.
Unintended consequences, my friends: it's the gift of government that keeps on giving and giving and giving.
And you can be sure that any effort to label the Web as a "public accommodation" will be evenhandedly applied by whichever of our two corrupt parties is currently in power. They'd never even think of using the "Justice" Department to harass website owners whose sites are ideologically opposed. Never, ever... pinky-swear, cross their hearts and hope to die.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I have a fuck you fuck you fuck you s...s...syndrome bitchslapslapbitchbitch called Tourette fuck asshole asshole syndrome asshole fuck fuck and I fuck you fuck you fuck you bitchslap asshole fuck want to work at the fuck fuck fuck you Department of fucking asshole cunt cunt bitch Justice with my fuck fuck mental disability fuck you cunt cunt, thank you!
Does LL Bean create Braille catalogs?
Sure, it sounds like a no-brainer right? Who doesn't want to help the handicapped? The problem with requirements like this in the real world though is that inevitabley the non-handicapped (i.e., the average user) will pay a price for compliance.
Got a video on the government website you like? Well, kiss it goodbye, because the odds are that said government agency can't afford to close caption it (close captioning isn't cheap). That means they'll just have to pull it and no one will get to see it.
Got a sophisticated, sharp looking, complex website? Well, kiss that goodbye too. The Section 508 best paractices standards don't like complex layout because it confuses the text readers. Only now it won't just be a suggestion. It will be mandatory.
And don't even THINK about Flash or pretty HTML5 effects! For that matter, don't even think about tables!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Okay...and since when are we pro-regulation of the internet? The ADA in general is ridiculous in my opinion, I'm all for accessibility for the handicapped, but the method in which it has been done thanks to the ADA has been heavy handed and ridiculous. Publish government standard for accessibility and require -ALL- government offices and websites to have those standards implemented. Failure to implement them is a civil offense, and those injured can sue the government for it. Make receiving government contracts of certain types require you to implement the standards as well - so basically anything that legally you NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO you have access to. Let businesses look at a cost-benefit to see if it's worth implementing these things for the handicapped.
Oh by the way, I have asthma, yes, that's classified as a disability under ADA. So where is my damn heated walkways to keep me from getting exercise induced asthma during the winter!
Unintended consequences have nothing in particular to do with government or regulation. All human decision making at all levels is riddled with error. That's why medicine has side effects, investments lose money, people get divorced, and businesses go under.
There's another side issue to this. The ADA is good in spirit but is a fundamentally flawed law. Some state laws, such as the California Unruh Civil Rights Act provide monetary damages to private plaintiffs who sue for discrimination. Combined with the ADA this has created in California and other states with similar laws "professional plaintiffs"; basically lawyers who shake down small businesses not compliant with the ADA and file hundreds, and in some cases over 1,000 lawsuits. There was a wheelchair bound lawyer in San Diego who would sue businesses for not being compliant, then offer to settle for roughly 2/3rds of what he knew (as a lawyer) their fees for defense would be; basically extorting these businesses for $20-$30k each. Some of these lawyers had filed over 1,000 lawsuits each in California; one lawyer named Jarek Molski had filed so many that the federal courts ruled he is not allowed to file a lawsuit unless approved by the state courts.
The issue at stake is that the combination of these laws does not allow a business ample time to make the corrections; a stipulation in the ADA that would allow the business owner a period of time to make corrections to their business to accomodate the disabled person. Without that, every website out there could be subject to this shakedown.
You can have this today! Just order a new iPad.
If they ever try to regulate business and privately owned websites, I predict the following will happen.
1. Websites will start hosting their services outside of the US.
2. Sites will detect ADA requests and only serve a plain text page with basic contact info.
I'm not a fan of the negative side effects (frivolous lawsuits) of the ADA regulations.
Sounds like a great sample website for the consequences of the ADA on the web.
Can you imagine how wonderful the web would be if ADA requirements were enforced on all the bullshit Flash websites?
Looks like I'll be browsing in ADA mode all day long! (not that I don't already... *clicks on /b/*)
"--wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy." --Benjamin Franklin
Except they mentioned possible exceptions for small businesses...which to me, means they ARE considering forcing these regulations on NON-govt. websites.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I was curious why the DOJ was writing anything about the "Assistant District Attorneys" at all...until it started talking about disabilities...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Um, no, wrong way to look at it. The store didn't demand anything, they just didn't choose to accommodate them. On the other hand, the disabled did demand a ramp from the store. You make think it's heartless (it isn't) but one person being handicapped shouldn't be a drain on everyone else. They shouldn't make their problem other people's problem. They have no right to do so. There are plenty of other solutions (some good, some bad) that achieve the same goal without every privately-owned store front being required to pay for and install a ramp.
I guess like everything else we over-tax and over-regulate, soon we'll drive all web hosting out of the United States.
This is going to be a hell of a country to live in 10-20 years from now when absolutely no business takes place here. :)
So maybe sometimes I might want to use an ADA alternate view of a website. For example, if I'm reading a web page about tensor analysis I might want to occasionally switch to the view that accommodates mentally disabled persons...
That's not so difficult. http://www.youtube.com/t/captions_about
The scary thing is it's ALREADY happening. Target was sued for their website violating the ADA and had to change their own private business website.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2006/09/7705.ars
As a veteran web developer, I appreciate guidelines on accessibility. Some things are simple. Alt tags, title tags, etc... But to make all of the guidelines mandatory (they have a LONG list) would destroy private business on the web.
I've had what seem to me mind blowing conversations over colors before. Well, we can't make that red because what about people who can't see red. You mean like stop signs and traffic lights? Using the color red is an import visual cue borrowed from the real world. To not take advantage of it hinders our ability to communicate to sighted people.
Another disturbing "guideline" is not to use Ajax. Really? Who is the government to tell me I can't use Ajax on the web. Or whatever future innovation from say HTML5 that we want to use.
But the idea of being sued to change my website, like Target was, to me is truly frightening.
This is what happens in many Federal government shops. Not that they ignore the law, they just avoid any sort of enhancement or technology that can't be cost effectively implemented within the ADA regulations. A prime example is closed captioning for streaming video. It's terribly expensive to hire somebody to do real time transcription for closed captioning. The result is that many an interesting lecture or presentation is simply NOT streamed. Not because they don't want to, because they can't AFFORD to (or their department can't afford to).
A federal law compelling websites to be redesigned for defectives raises First Amendment issues. It's "forced speech".
In general, "forced speech" can be required in commercial contexts only. This has been litigated a few times with regard to the Internet and the ADA. OKBridge won on summary judgement; they don't have to make their online bridge site "accessible". (They did put in a large-type option, but you still have to be able to see the cards to play.) AOL settled with the National Federation for the Blind, and AOL made the next version of their client program more compatible with screen reader programs.
The Department of Justice recognizes this. In their notice of proposed rulemaking, they write "It is the Department's intention to regulate only governmental entities and public accommodations covered by the ADA that provide goods, services, programs, or activities to the public via Web sites on the Internet. Although some litigants have asserted that ``the Internet'' itself should be considered a place of public accommodation, the Department does not address this issue here. The Department believes that title III reaches the Web sites of entities that provide goods or services that fall within the 12 categories of ``public accommodations,'' as defined by the statute and regulations. Because the Department is focused on the goods and services of public accommodations that operate exclusively or through some type of presence on the Web--whether hosting their own Web site or participating in a host's Web site--the Department wishes to make clear the limited scope of its regulations. For example, the Department is considering proposing explicit regulatory language that makes clear that Web content created or posted by Web site users for personal, noncommercial use is not covered, even if that content is posted on the Web site of a public accommodation or a public entity."
Incidentally, the site doesn't give you the link to the docket for the proposed rule.
Yeah but if I said all that it would have ruined the joke.
"Yellow on darker yellow" wouldn't have ruined anything.
to web developers having to put in a bunch of hacks as they did/do for IE6?
"The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
... but it's really terribly implemented.
I used to work for the State of California, and in the CSU system they've implemented the Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI). It has, so far, been a huge catastrophe.
The initiative states that all "information technology" systems being used by students or staff must meet accessibility guidelines - which stipulate that anyone, with any type of disability, must be able to use any piece of technology, any computer on campus, any website, any video, any learning materials - without hinderance.
There are numerous problems already. Specifically related to web design (and leaving out all the hardware issues), every site has to be reviewed and there's no one to enforce this. Each CSU DEPARTMENT (not university, but each department at the University) is meant to have their own auditor and compliance person, but there has been no funding allocated for this, so there is no one doing reviews. It is extremely expensive.
Vendors are confused as to what their systems need to do, as there are no clear specifications, yet this is a critical factor in awarding bids. A vendor can have a stellar product at a low price, but if someone takes the time to do a review and finds them a tiny bit out of compliance with the vague regulations, they lose the bid. It's not even remotely fair, so some departments have bypassed this and make purchases irrespective of the rules, and buy products to be modified later - which they never are. Everyone loses.
For on campus entities, you have hundreds of different people making different websites, with no oversight to make sure that like the Athletics department promo videos can be viewed by someone who is blind, deaf, etc. Then you throw in departmental politics and nothing ever gets done. Not everyone knows the rules, and there's no one to check them, and no support for the program.
It has been a clusterfuck, to say the least. The regulations went into effect a year or two ago and still they are probably 5% toward reaching their goal. In theory, I really like it, but I fail to see how the State of California (which is broke) is going to provide the massive funds needed so that a student with no eyes and a student with no limbs can sit down at ANY COMPUTER ON CAMPUS and use it to effectively work with any campus resource, such as online class registration.
The Feds can make any rules they want, but unless they put serious money and effort behind enforcing it, they will not get any farther than California. For how much this will cost the government, they'd be better off just hiring people that you can call or text or whatever that will simply answer questions directly or do these services for the disabled.
Right, because handicapped people are subhuman and should be treated with only derision. Ha ha, you broke your leg and can't walk down the stairs! You shoulda gotten to work earlier, before all the pregnant women and other disabled people!
Look, if there wasn't enough budget to add in an elevator, then maybe the project was too marginal to finish anyway? And also, it's not like the government just randomly makes changes like that - buildings currently under construction will be grandfathered in, and the people who plan new buildings will know that they have to include those sorts of amenities. Are you sure that the "powers that be" you talked about were actually the government and not just some higher-up in the company who decided they needed a reason to cancel the project?
Anyway, every single multi-story parking structure I've seen around here (south of LA) has an elevator. Clearly the budget exists to build these things, your dad's company just didn't feel like making less money.
the user interface still requires you to be able to read a screen (to know which button along the display does WITHDRAWAL/DEPOSIT/BALANCE INQUERY/etc) in order to operate the device.
I've noticed a headphone jack on several ATMs. Like you, I've never tried it myself, but I imagine it's like an automated phone attendant: "Press 1 for withdrawal, 2 for deposit..."
Speaking as a web accessibility expert. I would like to tell you flat out that 90% of sites I see these days can be made accessible just takes a bit more work and consideration of what you are actually doing. There are plenty of Accessible sites out there that might actually surprise you.
Simply put most sites can be made accessible very easy just follow a few simple rules and you will be nearly there.
* Use valid (x)HTML
* Use Contextually correct (x)HTML (h# tags are meant for headings p for paragraphs and so forth. Don't use tables for anything but tabular data.)
* Use alt properties for all images that convey information. ( You don't need to have alt text for your pretty ivy background it is not conveying anything.)
* Do not require JavaScript to access information you should be able to see any and all information without JavaScript. For those that love to have hide show default to show all then hide only if JavaScript is present.
* If you use Flash or any other multimedia provide alternative content that conveys the same information.
* Make sure your color schemes have enough contrast for people with color issues.
* Build your forms in proper order for tab-ing and use labels and fieldsets to separate and indicate fields and field groupings.
* Make sure all links stand out and can be tabbed to.
* If you try to convey information with a visual que like selected state in a menu use another tag in it's place like em or strong and style it appropriatly
Of course there are more things you do need to do but in general it is more a matter of learning yourself or hiring someone who actually knows proper HTML and CSS.
If you want more information on the guidelines they can be found at the following locations.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ (WCAG 1.0)
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (WCAG 2.0)
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ (Techniques for WCAG 2.0)
http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html (A group of experts who modified WCAG 1.0 to be up to date)
Would it make sense to REQUIRE all book publishers to publish extra copies in braille for example?
No, but it makes sense to require book publishers to grant copyright licenses to Braille publishers and to publishers of audio books designed specifically for players available only to blind people. 17 USC 121.
Thankfully, no. I'd have to shoot myself.
(Joking; I have it on my netbook and it's not as bad as previous versions of Windows. I'm still going to replace it with Mandriva, though.)
Free Martian Whores!
Hmm, full moon affected some moderator's reading comprehension? Mod this one redundant and it will be a fair mod.
I agree with it; governments SHOULD be accessible to all. Note this doesn't cover private web sites. Most private web sites (by "private" I mean non-government) are shooting themselves in the foot if their sites aren't readily accessible to everyone.
Who's giving illiterates mod points these days?
Free Martian Whores!
For example, a website selling 3D shutter glasses being required to have a blind-accessible website.
Unless one family member is blind and another will be using the glasses. The end user isn't always the one who places the order, especially if the end user is a minor.
The sad thing is, for many disabilities, a well-made(NOTE: WELL-MADE) Flash interface is better than a bog standard clean HTML interface. Unless one assumes that only bad sight/blindness counts as a disability.
One disability where a well-made Flash interface is advantageous is for example people with reduced mobility/manual dexterity. Large, distincite fields(Buttons) makes it easier for people with such disabilities. Hell, I have mild fibromyalgia with only rare attacks, and when I get bouts of that, I can sometimes barely type. In those situations using a mouse causes less pain and navigation issues than typing and otherwise using the keyboard.
Unfortunately, as noted in the beginning, many just blindly(pun intended) assume that disability=bad eyesight/totally blind.
Start your own.
This is far easier said than done, due in part to entry barriers that arise from state-enforced exclusive rights in land, electromagnetic spectrum, inventions, and works of authorship. For example, if you want to start your own cellphone company, spectrum is cost prohibitive.
I just wish the regulations were less strict especially when I see certain businesses with a dozen empty parking spaces
I'm not sure that's regulations, or the business owner's stupidity. There's a business in town that moved into a different building (Google streetview of it before the new business moved in), and after it moved in repainted the lot. It looks as though half a dozen handicapped spaces have been repainted, so now there are two. Clearly, the previous tenant had too many handicapped parking spots. If it were the regs, the new business would have needed just as many, since it's the same building and the same parking lot.
I don't know if it's still like that, but the dumbest I've seen is St John's Hospital here in town. The elevator in the parking garage has buttons in braille, as if Ray Charles is going to drive himself to the hospital and park there. Meanwhile, the elevators in the hospital weren't marked in braille the last time I was there.
Free Martian Whores!
"The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the Accessibility of Web Information and Services Provided by Entities Covered-
I got that far and lost interest, and I'm hardly a person with a short attention span.
It takes a special sort mind to go into law. You may interpret "special" however you wish.
When people demand open source code, they do so in the belief that everyone should have access to what makes software run.
This impacts a small percentage, but if you expect any business to open source code, then I don't see how you would have a problem with demanding that they open their web site.
Part of my job involves compliance testing for internal web sites. The regulations.gov site is pretty good from a compliance point of view. Have you tried 'viewing' it with a screen reader (eg JAWS)? All of your 'insights' are wrong.
A screen reader does not just read the source of a web page aloud. It renders the page, then helps the user navigate through it.
I did not find any non-tagged images (ok, if you look at the source you will see some, but those are in comments and thus not rendered).
The graphical navigation tabs work correctly (the reader tells the user what the alt tags are for each area of the map, and allows them to 'click' on them).
Pop-up javascript is no more of a problem to a screen reader than to a sighted user. When a pop-up occurs the screen reader will say 'new window' and read the contents of it.
The embedded alert has exactly the same effect on a screen reader as it does on a sighted person - none, because it is never rendered.
The image tagged 'close' is a big red X that is displayed at the top of a pop-up window. If a sighted person can understand that clicking on that X will close the window (as opposed to meaning 'sign here' or 'treasure is buried here'), why would a person using a screen reader have difficulty understanding that a clickable thing tagged 'close' at the top of a page will close the window?
Lastly, tagging an unclickable image as "logo" tells the user everything they need to know about it - the image contains new usable information.
You need to remember that having a page read to you is already a much slower process than looking at it. Making non-ambiguous things (like 'close' and 'logo') as terse as possible while still conveying the correct meaning is the right thing to do.
The ADA has ruined the practice of architecture, sucking much of the fun, creativity and art from the profession. Virtually all of greatest works of architecture would be ILLEGAL to build today, thanks to the ADA. The ADA also forces the many owners of older/historic building to defer maintenance in order to avoid triggering compliance.
The Act is basically a favor to the trade unions sold as feel-good equality nonsense. I shudder to think what it will do to the internet.
Argh. "New usable information" should be "no usable information".
They have no right to do so.
If recourse to do so is granted by law (in this case, the ADA), isn't that technically a right to do so?
You seem to be working under the delusion that there wouldn't be unintended consequences and people gaming the system if those regulations were not in place. Or that these phenomena are somehow intrinsic to, or even made worse by, regulation.
You also appear to be making claims without having all the facts. No offense, but I seriously doubt your client's project manager explained the cancellation in detail to every contracted bricklayer. Those projects could have been called off for any number of reasons.
Karma -5
Well, we can't make that red because what about people who can't see red. You mean like stop signs and traffic lights?
Color-blind people see things in shades of black, yellow, gray, blue, and white. Stop signs in the United States are a shade of yellow conventionally called "red", but they're also regular octagons. The traffic signal for stop is also "red", but it's on top. The traffic signal for go isn't "green" at all; it's turquoise, like Slashdot's color scheme.
Or whatever future innovation from say HTML5 that we want to use.
The HTML5 working group designs the new elements with assistive user agents in mind. For example, the <video> element supports SRT timed text that a user agent can display as a transcript or as synchronized captions. The problem is with outdated screen reader software that either A. doesn't support the new elements or B. can't track changes to the DOM that your JavaScript app makes.
Again, no one holds a gun to a customers head forcing them to patronize any private establishment.
As I understand it, the recently enacted U.S. national health insurance program, nicknamed Obamacare, requires people to buy health insurance from a private company.
The issue at stake is that the combination of these laws does not allow a business ample time to make the corrections
Meanwhile, "THE CITY of Springfield recently cited a rainy May as the reason it probably will not meet a deadline to make over 279 sidewalks compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act by today.
"When you consider that the first complaint was made in 2003, it's very hard to believe that explanation. It's more likely that the city blithely disregarded directives from the state attorney general and the Federal Highway Administration to make sidewalks usable by those least able to navigate the city."
Free Martian Whores!
Most of the parent story was plagiarized from WebAim (http://webaim.org/blog/dept-of-justice-considers-web-for-ada/). This is stolen almost verbatim from the WebAim site.
Their web page would fail my government's standards for accessibility.
Plain Language - Fail. It's written at a Grade 17.8 level, with a Flesch reading score of 11.5 (out of 100)
Acronyms - Fail -- On a screen reader, DoJ would be pronounced "dodge", and ADA would be "adda" - spell out the acronyms
Descriptive text for Image - Has it, but using 'DoJ' acronym.
Code - Fail. They're using TABLE tags for layout. They have empty paragraph tags, and extra tags.
If you're going to put up a page about accessible web pages, you would hope the web designer would put extra effort into their page.
It is actually possible to creat accessible Flash interfaces. Unfortunately, it seems most developers don't bother.
Except they mentioned possible exceptions for small businesses...which to me, means they ARE considering forcing these regulations on NON-govt. websites.
There would be little point in debating whether to write disability accessibility regulations for govt websites considering that http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?ID=3&FuseAction=Content the 1998 Amendment to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act already requires govt websites (and non-web apps) to give disabled employees and members of the public access that is comparable to the access available to others.
So, clearly, the ENTIRE point of the DOJ considering whether to extend ADA is in order to apply it to non-govt websites.
It's not their right to force private businesses to accommodate them and their handicaps. The government has, however, forced private businesses to accommodate them for them, which they (the Government) believe is their (the Government's) right to do so (I don't exactly agree). A subtle distinction? Yes, but an important one.
I find it quite telling that when people want to prevent access to information, they head straight for the Flash.
Just look at all those crappy Flash image gallery implementations on artist/photographer/architect sites where they don't want you to STEAL THEIR STUFF, want to resize your browser and want to control how fast you move from image to image.
lousy dirty bastards, I hate them all.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This broke my irony meter :).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Your web site will soon need to have a wheelchair ramp, and wheelchair capable toilets. You will also be required to have handicapped parking. And remember, government officials have no sense of humor, and will try to apply laws where the do not fit.
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/073bea1aa44c9396
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
When I worked in construction in L.A. . . .
There's your problem right there. California, and LA in particular, have some of the strictest, most arbitrary, most "can't fight city hall", building codes in the nation. One time, when we were following a client's standard design of having a thru-the-wall A/C unit to cool the little server room within an unconditioned stock room / warehouse, LA inspector's insisted we build a permanent ladder and a platform around it for servicing, citing a section of the code obviously intended to prevent homeowners from falling through the ceiling when furnaces and A/C units get installed in unfinished attics.
Then again, big business is pretty much running the government nowadays, so legislating accordingly might be seen as the appropriate course of action.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I agree with your main point, but knowing nothing else other than what was stated, it sounds like a sufficient number of handicapped spaces on the ground floor would have been a reasonable solution.
FYI, an elevator in a two-story garage, considering all that has to go into it, would probably cost in the low six figures, if not more. That's not counting the space it takes from more profitable usage.
Never before has so much been done for so few.
I will never forget that.
I was wondering how come the DOJ was mandating ADA as the new language in which web pages had to be written. Oh, the horror...
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Do blind people perhaps get a ride to the hospital by friends or family, to go to an appointment perhaps?
Come on, that really shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
the web could use stronger typing.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
I want to give due credit to Cyndi Rowland at WebAIM for the summary. I did not link to them in submission as their site probably would not stand up to the /. effect. I share the sentiment though. This is fantastic news, and anyone who hopes to get old should be grateful.
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
Forget about fair moderation from Slashdot nowadays. Moderation has gone to the dogs with mass idiots joining this site. My previous account got modded down so severely to Karma terrible that my posts could not be read by anyone unless they browsed at -1. This new account has bad karma too. I now plan on trying a new system, view at 0 and mod up all on my friends list to +5,
They're not likely to be in the parking garage unintended. They'll be dropped off at the front door or the emergency room. If they're coming from the parking lot, someone sighted will be with them.
Free Martian Whores!
Not necessarily. With aids like braille embossed on buttons, audible cues etc, blinds don't always need someone with seeing to follow them at all times. Unless people reason as retardedly as you do.
You still don't get it, do you? Why would a blind person be in a parking garage unintended? If blind person is in a parking garage he's not alone. I didn't say braille elevator buttons were stupid, in most cases they're necessary. I said braille elevator buttons in a parking garage is stupid.
Tell me, why would a blind person be in a parking garage by himself?
Speaking of retarded, my oldest daughter has a measured IQ of 75, you insensitive clod (but yours may be lower). Mine's 150, moron. Try to keep up and try to understand what I'm writing rather than blindly lashing out.
Free Martian Whores!
I strongly doubt your IQ's any higher than your daughters... such father, such offspring and all that.
What I pointed out was: The blind/severely degraded may very well have been dropped off by someone, or is waiting to be picked up, close to the elevators. If it's anything like a normal hospital, the parking garage elevator area tends to be less crowded than the area around the main entrance, and thus less chaotic. Unlike what you are trying to assert, there are perfectly valid reasons for a person with degraded sight/total blindness to be in the parking garage. In fact, in REALITY, it's often easier for those people to use that route.
My condoleances to your offspring on having inherited your bad genes.
I strongly doubt your IQ's any higher than your daughters
Your ignorance is showing. Her disability was caused by her umbilical cord being wrapped around her neck when her mother went into labor. Most mental retardation isn't hereditary; in fact the primary cause is maternal alcoholism, secondary cause is trauma in infancy.
What I pointed out was: The blind/severely degraded may very well have been dropped off by someone, or is waiting to be picked up, close to the elevators.
Not at all likely at that hospital. It's a torturous drive to the parking garage up and down a few one-way streets, then through the maze that is the garage itself, while the main entrance is thirty feet from Madison Street and has a three lane drop off point, and the ER is just off Carpenter street.
Nobody's going to go into the parking garage if they're not parking. Period.
Free Martian Whores!