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."
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."
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)
WTF?
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
The Reversal of Freedoms Act of 1990 doesn't care about such things!
Except that the ADA already requires certain businesses to make provisions for people with handicaps. For example, a hotel is required to have a wheelchair entrance, because it is a "public accommodation." Likewise, banks have to put braille on their ATMs, bus operators have to be able to handle people who have difficulty climbing stairs (to board the bus), etc. Why should websites be exempt from these requirements?
Palm trees and 8
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
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.
STFU and do what the Federal Government wants citizen.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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!
... Likewise, banks have to put braille on their ATMs, ...
Even the drive up ones! Also braille on elevator buttons in the parking garage.
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.
Even the drive up ones!
It never occurred to you that blind people might ride as passengers in automobiles that visit drive up ATMs?
A better criticism of ATMs is the fact that the number pad has braille on it but 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 want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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!!!!
Why should websites be exempt from these requirements?
Because I shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to make sure I'm complaint with thousands of pages of State and Federal regulations when I publish a webpage?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
They don't put braille on drive-up ATMs. They put braille on ATMs. They don't make different keys depending on where you're installing the unit.
The ADA doesn't force record shops to offer only products that can be enjoyed by the deaf. So I don't see any reason why it would require web cartoonists to offer only products that can be enjoyed by the blind. Just put some fucking alt-text in there and make it navigable by screen reader. Yes, that should be taken care of by good design, but precious few people care about good design.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Screen readers can help the "reading impaired" aspect. Voice recognition can improve the "writing/typing impaired" aspect.
But what, other than direct supervision by an experienced caregiver, can be done to "improve the web experience" for someone with profound mental retardation?
With all due respect, some people are more equal than others.
The blind, deaf and paralyzed have normal mental capabilities, their handicap lies in the information channel between their minds and the rest of the world.
Providing alternate channels or improving the signal in a channel to enable them to use their faculties is perfectly viable.
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.
Maybe because the web is a medium and not a place?
I'm all for requiring public physical places to be designed with the needs of the disabled in mind. This only makes sense and I think has made a tremendous difference for both the legally disabled and our generally aging population but I don't think the web is the equivalent of a public place. I think it's a medium more akin to a newspaper or book.
Would it make sense to REQUIRE all book publishers to publish extra copies in braille for example? I can certainly see the value of regulations which said that if the publisher (or website author) doesn't do it themselves a third-party service provider must not be prevented from (legally) making the information accessible but to require all websites to do it themselves would put a huge burden on website authors and may just cause a lot of people to stop putting information on the web unless they need to or their is a compelling commercial reason to do so.
Let's look at a project to scan in material from old books and make it available in image/pdf format for research. If the information were required to be accessible it would add a significant amount of work and cost to the (already expensive) digitization process. In my own case where I am putting up some very specific historic and technical material which I am making no money on I might just stop doing it. This would be a net loss for the spread of knowledge.
These types of regulations work best when they encourage people to do the right thing but do NOT just stop anything from happening. eg. If people stopped building public places because of the expense of ADA compliance the ADA would not make sense on a societal level as public places have value. The same goes for websites.
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.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
By the way, don't expect any small business exemption to last forever. That's what regulations are for after all: to tilt the playing field in favor of large corporations at the expense of small independent businesses.
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
how much will this cost tax payers.
I'm guessing just about enough money to fight the war in Iraq for 5 minutes. Auditing and recoding government websites will probably cost several million dollars, but that's peanuts compared to most government spending, and it's more than worth it to make sure disabled people have access to the government they help pay for.
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
Because there's a significant difference between a business with capital for a physical presence and one based on the web.
What's more, rather than modifying a particular feature - e.g., modifying the entrance to have a ramp, modifying buttons with letters on them to have another set of letters on them -- we're talking about forcing translation of one form of content to another. This is in many cases, absolutely ridiculous. If I have a website for a painting gallery, sorry, but spending the extra time to change the pictures to words or requiring the removal of interactive animations (as horrible as they usually are, sometimes they're good) is a completely unnecessary burden. If a record label has a website, sorry, but deaf people aren't their audience. If my company develops audio or visual apps that don't make sense for deaf or blind people, then requiring my company to spend the extra time to cater to this non-audience is idiotic and wasteful.
And as difficult as it is for websites to survive based solely on ad revenues, this will make it that much harder.
You are making the mistake of assuming that the purpose of regulations is to serve those that they claim to protect or assist.
Regulations exist to give one type of business a competitive advantage over another.
I don't know about you, but my online banking website doesn't look, act or feel like a book or magazine. There is a definite difference between a content web site and a web application.
I personally don't have an issue with requiring accessibility for most sites (as long as you can provide an accessible alternative to your content or web app) - the tools they do use need to be updated more often. Some of the screen readers require IE6.
Sleep: A completely inadequate substitution for Caffeine.
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.)
Uh, there is a braille version of Playboy. Issues of Playboy printed in braille have been published by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped since 1970.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Why should websites be exempt from these requirements?
It depends on how broadly you draw "public accommodation". Take computer software in general, for example. Should the government ban the release of software (open source software in particular) that does not have special support for those with disabilities? What if instead it is provided as software as a service? Does an SAS application become a public accommodation just because it is free? What if it isn't?
Like many things, the reasonability of such requirements depends on how strict they are and how hard they are to implement. Banning websites like Google Maps on the grounds of inaccessibility would be pernicious. But there might be something an online mapping application could do that would make it somewhat more accessible. If the government does not draw the requirements with some considerable care, they could become fodder for decades of lawsuits.
Drawn carefully though, I think such requirements would be a good idea. An online travel ticket / reservation site is an excellent example of what should properly be considered a public accomodation. As should most sites that offer goods for sale, or provide reference information. Websites run by businesses should be held to a stricter standard than free services provided by individuals, though.
I thought the purpose of regulations was to give control and a sense of power to the regulator.
Constitutionally Correct
Uh, there is a braille version of Playboy. Issues of Playboy printed in braille have been published by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped since 1970.
Mod parent interesting! I always wondered what those mound shaped Playboy publications were for...
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
I guess Apple was just ahead of the regulatory curve.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
The thing is that there's no good reason for a web page to be "designed from the ground up to be used by the not handicapped". In fact, the original design of the web is quite amenable to use by people who may be blind, for example.
Since I fully expect that some government websites will become required-to-use (by law) in the next decade or so (e.g. as it becomes impossible to get most IRS forms other than off the IRS website), those websites need to be accessible to everyone. The other option, of course is NOT requiring them to be used, but we're not heading that way as far as I can see.
Of course in the real world there are compromises; no one is suggesting that the IRS site be accessible to someone who is deaf, blind, and quadraplegic, if nothing else because the technology to do it via smell is simply not there. ;) But making a reasonable effort to not exclude people who are blind or just nearsighted (e.g. by not using 5pt fonts; lots of nearsighted people there) or colorblind (a fairly large number of people there) doesn't seem unreasonable.
Or put another way, what's the point of a government website if a large fraction of its target audience can't use it? Perhaps the information should then be shared in some other way, not via the web.
*** for this think wheel chair ramps and the like ***
I can understand that they have to make PUBLIC buildings and locations (state, federal, etc) accessible, but, this almost implies they are going to require that private business (eg the note about small business exceptions) HAVE to put their places up to some form of handicapped accessible standards?!?!
WTF?
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 building, nor should they be holding a gun to a private business to cater to any specific crowd.
There is a reason why such things exist. It is to ensure that all persons have free access to things. For example black people and the front of a bus etc...
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".
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.
I have met two people in my life that drive and use wheel chairs. They whole idea freaks me out... but they can drive and they need wheel chairs to move around.
Yes, and because we're 100% sure that the oh-so-enlightened Obama administration would never, ever use such a provision to quell free speech rights (unlike that bad ole' satan-worshiping Bush). It's going to be a total coincidence that "Justice" department lawyers only contact Web site owners who publish views opposed to the current administration's policies.
This year, they've contacted the NRA about their non-compliant Web site, while ignoring NOW. Once the sheeple vote in 2012, they'll be harassing PETA and ignoring the Chamber of Commerce.
In fact, I've been shocked, shocked! to find out that the Democrats are owned by lobbyists just like the Republicans. Not the SAME lobbyists, of course, but just as much a wholly owned subsidiary. Whodda thunk it?
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
This isn't political correctness, this is basic human compassion as well as practicality. We're talking about adding basic accessibility to some web services that are quickly becoming a practical necessity in our society. A blind person shouldn't expect to pilot a fighter jet, but it's not unreasonable for them to expect to be able to pay their water bill online.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Apparently not by the publishers of Playboy themselves though. Of course if the magazine were offered as an online service, the problem would largely be eliminated. No secondary re-publishing required.
The ADA has nothing to do with making ridiculous accommodations. The requirements are sane and help ensure that people with disabilities can still function as members of our society; wheelchair ramps, braille on ATMs, lifts and elevators in public transportation. Given the fact that certain critical services are now accessed through the web (e.g. banking), it is both reasonable and logical to require certain websites to provide accessibility for people who have vision problems or who have difficulty handling a mouse/keyboard.
Or should someone be excluded from paying bills online because they happen to be disabled?
Palm trees and 8
They sure do love that, but these things would never get passed unless the individuals that fund politicians' releection campaigns didn't want them.
Do you really think that a regulation that affects a "too big to fail" bank or a corporation like GE will get passed into law unless it gives them a competitive advantage?
The "please don't throw me into the briar patch" routine is strictly for the benefit of the voters.
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
You are sick of political correctness because you are not adversely affected by the lack of it.
My 8 year old kid with cerebral palsy benefits every day from the ADA, medical assistance, school systems forced to treat him like a human being, and the market for niche medical equipment that has blossomed as a result.
Perhaps he should have just accepted that he was different and sat there staring off into space, awash in his drool, instead of partaking in a life full of experiences.
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!
Hi, I am a cyclist. I would like to sue all the places I regularly shop that don't have a bicycle rack easily accessible in front of the store. Sometimes I'm reduced to chaining my bicycle to the pole on a parking sign, made to lose my dignity. It should be illegal not to have a decent bike rack in front of a store.
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
Yeah, this isn't about the deaf being able to hear music.
This is about every citizen having equal access to government, for example.
If you don't know the difference, then I think I've figured out what your particular disability is.
Your insinuation that everyone gets their "fair share" of harship and that this is no different for, say, a blind person than anyone else... yeah, that's nothing short of laughable.
Now it woudl be easy to assume that you have no physical disability based on your comment. Alternately its possible that you have some (most likely minor) issue that your extremely proud of overcoming "on your own", in which case I guarantee there are ways you haven't even thought of that your daily life is affected. Either way, I'm willing to bet you have at least pretty good use of your eyes, ears, and arms.
So try this: if I'm right that you have use of your eyes, go through one day wearing a blindfold. All day. No peaking, for any reason. Now imagine doing that every day of your life.
If you don't have use of your eyes, then instead try going through a day having immobilized your writing-hand arm in a sling. Again, no use of that arm for any reason.
Then we can haev a conversation about your "fair share" of hardship.
Braille porno
The passenger side of the vehicle can not reach a drive up ATM.
But it is cheaper to have one ATM design that gets used universally anyway.
The problem is that if there aren't enough disabled folks, then no businesses will have any motive to serve them, so the handicapped people will be severely limited in their options. Apparently when all things are considered, requiring businesses to be more accessible is viewed as being less of an infringement of freedom than completely preventing disabled people from functioning in society.
The profit to be made from making bill-paying disabled-accessible far outweighs the cost of implementing it, therefore any sane business will do so. It doesn't need the force of law to make it happen. Note I'm talking about private entities here; the government of course has no profit motive, so by all means, craft regulations for government websites, as it's the only way to give them feedback they can't ignore.
But in terms of economic drag (let's spare readers the broken window fallacy, for the moment) how much will forcing compliance on non-government sites cost? For instance, if every small business in America (see "possible exemption for small businesses" in TFS for relevance) has to comply, what more profitable use of their time/money will they be missing out on? What's the opportunity cost here? If a business doesn't see a need to create a ADA-compliant version of their site, should they be compelled? If the manufacturer of automotive accessories doesn't think that the cost of re-coding their site for accessibility to blind people isnt' likely to be offset by sales, will the government use force to change their tune? Keep in mind that force, clothed in the glove of our civil law, but nonetheless a mailed fist, is what compels compliance.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
First, it's DMCA. Second, the DoJ doesn't often initiate actions against ADA offenders. That's usually left to individual plaintiffs. For example, http://jimthatcher.com/law-target.htm
So what obligation does flickr have towards blind browsers when most of their content is user-posted visual content?
The site is rather obviously designed for people that can see.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Look at the history of the implementation of the ADA to see how this will likely work. We didn't rip up every sidewalk in the nation to add curb cuts. No, the way these projects were handled was that accessibility improvements were tied to new construction or to significant reconstruction of a road, building, et cetera.
If handled the same way, web sites will need to start rolling in ADA improvements with new releases of the site or even individual pages (depending on architecture). If you design a site with ADA/508 in mind, the cost isn't all that great.
The passenger side of the vehicle can not reach a drive up ATM.
That's why cars have the ability to move -- there's no law against coming the opposite direction into a drive-up ATM -- besides, the user could be sitting in the backseat of the car......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
well, unless you are one of those people who insists on using Flash and Javascript for every damned thing, and considers creating a less "feature filled" version of your webpage to be an undue burden.
I consider the Federal Government telling me how to design my webpage to be an undue burden.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Exactly... One can imagine all manner of crazy situations we may get into. For example, a website selling 3D shutter glasses being required to have a blind-accessible website. Or how about required closed captioning for your YouTube videos!
> So what obligation does flickr have towards blind browsers
Probably none.
> The site is rather obviously designed for people that can see.
When viewing, sure (though it has more than just images; users can provide alt text for the images and other related information which could be of interest to someone who can't see the image). But as you yourself pointed out, flickr has both content consumption and content upload functionality. I know of several blind users who make use of flickr to post photos they take. Should the flickr upload UI be available to such users? Why or why not? They're just like any other user who takes photos and wants to post them for their family to see or whatever. Note that last I checked said flickr UI is in fact harder to use than it should be if you're not sighted.
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.
If you read the linked documents, you'll see that they bring up the point of alternative means of access to goods/services/info. In your restaurant scenario, that means that fulfilling the accessibility obligation can include having somebody read the menu to you, provide you a braille menu, bring a sampler tray and let you nod at what you want.
Section 508 standards have long had a provision for alternative presentations of information. An accessible website can be achieved by presenting otherwise media rich content in a plain text page as an alternative. There's no reason to think that would change.
> No one is holding a gun to the person accessing a site
For government sites this is starting to not be true. If the law requires you to do something (e.g. file a tax return) and the only sane way to do it is through a web site (e.g. because it needs some obscure IRS form not at your local library and the IRS is only providing forms via its site), then in fact someone is holding a gun to you to access the site. That's what it means for the law to require something: a gun is being held.
I can understand that they have to make PUBLIC websites and information (state, federal, etc) accessible, but, this almost implies they are going to require that private business (eg the note about small business exceptions) HAVE to put their websites up to some form of handicapped accessible standards?!?!
WTF?
That's nothing new. Private businesses like hotels and restaurants are currently required to meet the ADA standards. If you serve the public at large, you have to be able to serve folks with disabilities.
At least with these website regulations it should be relatively easy to meet them. It's all text/code anyway... Any special parsing will be done on the client's end. You just have to make sure to tag your images and make sure things are navigable. It isn't like you have to physically construct a ramp or anything.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Wonko the Sane (surprised to see you here in the asylum, BTW!) is right. What you're talking about isn't the purpose, but an effect beneficial to corps with political power and detrimental to everyone else. The sense of power felt by the regulators just makes it a lot easier for bad regulations (which means "most of them") to be created. The quality of the regulation doesn't affect the feeling of power; it only affects everything else.
Your brain is not a computer.
That has nothing to do with ADA, it's just a tired old joke. It's a very simple application of the economy of standardization.
Let's say I build ATMs.
If I'm going to build 10,000 ATMs and I have to make the the buttons, why in the hell would I make TWO kinds of button, one for ATMs that need Braille and one for ATMs that do not? That doubles the cost of my key molds or machining equipment, and I have to keep track of separate inventory of assembled ATM models and separate replacement keyboards.
Instead, I'm going to make one ATM model, offer different casings for it depending on whether you want a standalone or one that's built into a wall, and I'm done. I have exactly one ATM model in stock, and when you call and order one, I ship one.
When one of your customers in a fit of piqued rage about the fact that he has to deal with those little dots on the buttons busts it with his ever-present whiskey bottle, I can replace that keyboard with the secure knowledge that it's ADA-compliant even if it doesn't need to be, because it's cheaper to make them ALL compliant.
Standardization leads to a lot of little things like this. It's usually a lot cheaper to standardize on a part that has ALL of the features you could possibly need across as many applications as possible than to make specific parts that fill the exact feature set for each application.
Random example:
Why do you think Southwest is almost invariably good about having working aircraft where they need them? Because they fly only one basic model of aircraft. They've centered their entire business model around flying routes that can fill the 137 seats in a 737-300 or 737-700 (they have a few 737-500s with lower seating capacity for specific routes, but it's a small amount of their fleet). Their pricing adjusts dynamically to make sure that their planes fly nearly full.
All of their mechanics can work on any of their airplanes, all of their pilots can fly any of their airplanes, and if a plane breaks down or is horribly late they can (with very few exceptions) replace it with any aircraft in their fleet without having to worry about finding one with the right number of seats, a qualified crew, etc.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
However, you will likely have to face a bunch of pissed off people lined up in the proper direction waiting their turn.
Having a handicapped person doesn't give you the right either to just do as you please, and hinder the normal people from going about their business in the normally prescribed manner.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Would it make sense to REQUIRE all book publishers to publish extra copies in braille for example? I can certainly see the value of regulations which said that if the publisher (or website author) doesn't do it themselves a third-party service provider must not be prevented from (legally) making the information accessible but to require all websites to do it themselves would put a huge burden on website authors and may just cause a lot of people to stop putting information on the web unless they need to or their is a compelling commercial reason to do so.
Not these days, but it would make sense to require that they provide access to an electronic copy that could then be run through whatever reader hardware/software a person might require to access that content.
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.
True, but many cars are equipped with this thing called the "back seat", and most come equipped with a matching thing called a "back window". A back-seat passenger on the driver's side can reach an ATM just as easily as the driver can.
So, while it's obviously somewhat rare, the Braille on drive-up ATMs does actually get used occasionally.
However, your second point is the "give the man a cookie" one. That's exactly why drive-up ATMs have Braille. Because all ATMs do. Building a separate non-Braille version would be more expensive than just standardizing on having Braille. One keyboard, one assembly line, one SKU in stock.
That's also why almost all PC power supplies can take 110V or 220V input. Even with the extra cost involved in building a dual-mode transformer, it's cheaper than building two models and tracking them separately.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Basic human compassion enforced at gunpoint. There's an important distinction there.
Perhaps not everybody else in the world should be forced to be responsible for everybody else's shortcomings?
Ah...but as I originally posted, I said I could understand it for websites, etc. for PUBLIC services/sites (state, federal, local) since people DO have to interact with them. Much like I understand the ban on smoking in government buildings where people HAVE to go, or making these places more physically accessible.
My problem comes from Govt. requiring privately owned and operated businesses to adhere to these types of regulations. It should be up to the proprietor as to what they want to do to accommodate as many people as possible...vs their costs/profits.
Again, no one holds a gun to a customers head forcing them to patronize any private establishment.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How does this freak you out, exactly?
The foot pedals are moved up to hand controls, so the accelerator and brake become a handle conveniently located on or near the steering wheel.
With an automatic transmission, it's trivially different from driving with one foot and two hands.
Now, if they tried it with a stick shift, OK, that's a lot for two hands to manage all at the same time. Clutch, accelerator, gear shifter, steering, ummmm - wait, we ran out of appendages two appendages ago...
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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.........
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.
Like people who don't have pale skin?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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. :)
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.
... 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.
Translation: I like my subsidy and don't give a shit about the collateral damage as long as I get mine.
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..."
I don't see any reason for the uploading to be particularly hostile to the blind. That they have a reasonably stable API for such things at least means that 3rd party accommodations should be straightforward.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
how much will this cost tax payers.
I'm guessing just about enough money to fight the war in Iraq for 5 minutes. Auditing and recoding government websites will probably cost several million dollars, but that's peanuts compared to most government spending, and it's more than worth it to make sure disabled people have access to the government they help pay for.
Furthermore, this will directly serve those who became disabled as a result of war. If we as a society are willing to ask soldiers to go off to war and risk their lives, we should also honor their sacrifices by doing our best to make sure the Internet is still useful for them.
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!
I was rather bothered that www.regulations.gov itself is heavily dependent on .swf files to convey its information. It also appears nearly blank if scripts are not allowed.
I sent a complaint to the web master. This is just effing wrong.
Will
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!
Start your own.
I consider the Federal Government telling me how to design my webpage to be an undue burden.
^ This, a thousand times.
Also, I maintain a website for a small business. It's really nothing more than a spiffy advertisement for the brick-and-mortar business, including nice photos and contact info. No actual "business" is done on the site; customers need to contact us directly. So other than the potential for a few (very few) lost customers due to the site not being disabled-friendly (though our facility certainly is), what would be the purpose of redesigning the site from the ground up just to comply with what some people in government think it should be?
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.
However, you will likely have to face a bunch of pissed off people lined up in the proper direction waiting their turn.
You people just can't stop nitpicking this, can you? Two thoughts:
1) They'll get over it.
2) I don't know where you live, but around these parts there is rarely a line at the ATM. I've gone through them backwards numerous times before so as to enable friends to use the ATM without having to give me their PIN number. It's no big deal.
hinder the normal people from going about their business in the normally prescribed manner.
Driving into the ATM in the wrong direction does not "hinder" anyone.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
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?
Excellent idea!
First, we have to go to the real estate office to buy some land. Hope there's a ramp to get in there.
Second, we have to go visit an architect to draw up the plans. Hope there's a ramp to get in there.
Third, we have visit with suppliers, distributors, decorators, and the like to kit out our space. Hope they all have ramps.
Fourth, we have to take all our money and run it to the bank. Geez, we sure hope there's a ramp for that. We don't want to put $20K in the ATM or through the drive-thru window.
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!
Then don't make a webpage.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
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.
Most anytime I go through a drive through ATM, there are at least 2-3 cars in line ahead of me. Someone coming in the wrong way, would definitely mess things up for everyone else.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Wow, that was an awful translation.
I don't like my subsidy at all, really. I would ideally like to be entirely self-sufficient and provide everything my child needs to survive and thrive. The truth of the matter is that such is not possible.
Whenever I can, I find ways to handle his needs outside the system in order to reduce our dependence (for example, buying a $500 netbook out of pocket instead of having medical assistance buy the $8000 "medically approved" assistive communication device).
But I can't afford to install a wheelchair lift in a public school, so I'm glad the ADA makes that happen. I can't afford or compel a concert hall to provide wheelchair accessible seating, so I'm glad the ADA does that so my kid can see a performance. I can't make Slashdot comments be accessible, but maybe, one day, the ADA will help do that so my son can come in here and call you a dipshit himself.
I do believe it's good for disabled folks to have an alternate method of accessing a website.
I agree.
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).
I agree with that, too.
Further, I am terribly concerned that some ways of implementing these ADA requirements could act as a choke on the right of USA citizens to free speech. Publishing on the web should be available to any USA citizen who can master the (rather low) skills needed to write a basic HTML web page. No one should be excluded from the web because they cannot afford to make their writing compliant with ANY government-imposed standard.
I'm thinking that the only good way to implement the ADA requirements will be to develop classes of web pages that have different minimal levels of compliance. At the top, all Federal and State web pages have to be fully compliant in every detail; at the bottom, any web page produced solely by an individual would not have to meet any of the requirements. In between would be classes for smaller governments (counties, cities, school districts, etc), businesses, businesses that sell web page development services, volunteer groups, and so on.
The same standards cannot be applied to the local soccer club's web site which is run by one the soccer moms, and a Federal agency web site like the Veterans Administration.
So classes something like this:
The identifying comments mentioned would contain the developer and the date of development (useful in allowing old pages to be grandfathered forward when ADA requirements are changed, even if they are not in compliance with the changes). The identifiers might also help in determining whether content was plagiarized, or is outdated-- but those are not ADA concerns. However the ADA could make it a felony to alter or remove identifying comments, which would probably have some nice secondary benefits, like decreasing plagiarism of commercial works.
There would obviously be a need to periodically review the ADA requirements and the class structure. We can expect rapid technological improvements in both the web and in assistive devices for disabled individuals, and the ADA regulations should all be reviewed at least every decade.
Will
It never occurred to you that the ADA was the worst fucking law ever?
No, and I deal with it all the time (HVAC & plumbing design).
99% of the requirements are cost-free or very low cost. Really, what's so bad about installing a lever handle rather than a knob, it evens helps the able-bodied when they have something in their hands. ADA doesn't apply to private single-family homes, and for large condos and apartment buildings, only a percentage of dwelling units need comply. ADA typically doesn't make you change existing facilities unless you're doing work anyway. Once you become familiar with the issues, design work is no harder and new construction doesn't cost a whole lot more than before the ADA. The main issue of costs I see is the need for elevators or ramps in situations that may otherwise require only stairs. (Elevators, even simple wheelchair lifts, can be seriously expensive). Even so, buildings more than 3 stories would usually get an elevator anyway.
So how much government compulsion is acceptable to you in order to extract the resources necessary for your child to survive and thrive that you are unable to produce yourself?
Is there a limit? If so what is it and on what moral basis do you justify this behavior?
Federal websites were already supposed to be in compliance with most of the ADA regulations that are likely to come out of this, though sadly enough www.regulations.gov proves that this has not been well enforced.
So we can hope that the cost for bringing agencies like National Institute for Health, Veterans Administration, and so on into compliance will be minimal.
Those responsible for www.regulations.gov should be rounded up and brought to trial for the crime of unconscious conspiracy to commit treason.
They do the USA a tremendous disservice that would be laughable, if it wasn't so stupidly, pathetically detrimental to the public welfare.
Will
"Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things."
Basically it is considered a violation of a person's civil rights to not accommodate their disability. Accommodation covers a broad area for action, however, not making the effort is a violation of the law that has been in place since 1990.
Any business that caters to the public must comply or be fined and/or sued into oblivion. Like it or not, that is the way it is.
:q! Oh crap, not again...
"My problem comes from Govt. requiring privately owned and operated businesses to adhere to these types of regulations."
Sorry charlie, it's been the law since 1990. It is a violation of a person's civil rights to not accommodate their disability. As a business owner you have no choice but to comply or no longer do business.
:q! Oh crap, not again...
Thank you! It's just good coding practices anyway. We should all be doing this.
:q! Oh crap, not again...
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
In many cases those signs were mandated by state laws. In other words - first the government mandated segregation under penalty of law. Then the government mandated desegregation under penalty of law. How about having the government leave private businesses alone for a change?
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.
While ADA was well intentioned, we need to fix the brick-and-mortar version of the law before even THINKING about applying it to websites. Period.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
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.
Those are interesting questions.
When my son was first born, diagnosed, operated upon, and signed up for every service imaginable, I questioned whether or not his life was worth the drain not only upon the finances of the state but also upon the lives of those who would support him.
For the longest time, I did not see his survival as a decision that made any sense. It seemed to me it would have been better to let him expire naturally via aspiration (he is unable to swallow) than to perpetuate his imposition upon society.
Part of this was due to my belief at the time that his inability to fully function physically was an indicator that he would be similarly cognitively dysfunctional.
Over the years, that has proven to not be the case. He has, in fact, proven to be extremely intelligent, but getting to that point required his survival and the intervention of several people.
Let me add at this point that intervention is a key word. When a family accepts support from government, all illusions of privacy disappear. We have had night nurses in our home for eight years now to provide care in order that my wife and I might remain productive, tax generating members of society. I do not, however, believe the people are getting a fair deal in this. Neither my wife nor I generate enough monthly income to offset my son's collateral expenses.
So how much government compulsion is acceptable?
For the most part, the government's compulsion in regards to my son is financial. The government compels each working citizen to hand over some amount of money and distributes it to a variety of programs, including medical coverage and education. I am unable to, on my own, provide an educational setting with peer interaction, payment for occupational, physical, and speech therapists, equipment acquisition and maintenance costs, and attendant nurses while at school.
What I can and do provide are the things most parents do: food; shelter; support; transport; clothing; activities/experiences; love; guidance.
But why government? Why does government provide so much for my son? And what would I do without those provisions?
First, private insurance knows what the bottom line is: profitability. As such, they cover what they feel is adequate given a diagnosis, but they often provide less than minimum. For example, private insurance will pay for durable equipment (like a suction machine), but does not pay for the supplies required for its use, supplies that need to be refreshed every month. Our state government covers that as a result. Private insurance will not pay for nurses, but without them, he is not able to attend school. Again, state government (the taxpayers) pick up the tab.
I'm not thrilled with the situation at all. But, I'm also glad the option is there.
Second, government has put into place requirements for individual educational support for kids with "special needs" (a warm way of saying disabilities). It is through this system that the need for educational therapeutic support is determined and assigned (physical, occupation, and speech therapists). In my son's case, that support has resulted in his ability to communicate his own thoughts to us, so they are invaluable to me, but probably of little value to the majority of taxpayers.
In the things that I can provide, the government compulsion of facilities access has been key. Mandates for ramps, lifts, elevators, even bathroom stalls, have allowed my son to explore new places and new ideas, furthering his intellectual development (again, hard to quantify the dollar value for the state).
However, beyond access, I've never made a demand of an establishment or considered suing anyone. This is not true for all families with a disabled child. I know many who see litigation as a fast track to wealth.
Is there a limit to the level of compulsion? Aren't there in all things? The ADA is about giving people with disabilities the chance to try, but it needn't go to ridiculous extremes (and here I realize that "ridi
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.
Ever heard of the 1st amendment? I don't recall a clause in there exempting certain forms of expression from protection if they aren't complaint with the ADA.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Which of the greatest works of architecture would be illegal?
If you don't have any basic human compassion, maybe someone should shoot you. ;-)
:q! Oh crap, not again...
In order for one person to consume more than he produces another must produce more and be persuaded to give up the excess. Either that happens voluntarily or it must be taken by force (stolen).
Right now everything the government does falls into the latter category because all taxes are extracted under threat of violence.
It's easy, but mentally dishonest, for individual to divorce the benefits he received from the government from the armed IRS agents that will arrest and imprison anyone who gets caught trying to keep everything that they produce. Since no one manages to get through life without receiving some benefit from the government we all have blood on our hands. The question is: Do we continue to defend this practice or do we decide that no one has the right to the production of another person?
Never before has so much been done for so few.
I will never forget that.
A web site is not a place.
The OP was talking about physical locations. I agree with you that web sites are not.
:q! Oh crap, not again...
This will never happen. I know it's trendy now to try to make everyone equal by suppressing those with more abilities, but ultimately you're never going to be on an equal footing if you're blind. Why should people who like flashy shit or people who can design truly usable graphical UIs with Flash (or whatever) have to suffer so someone else who can't see can claim they are equal now?
Don't get me wrong, being blind would suck and I feel bad for them. Government sites should accommodate and good businesses should too, but if you think this will do anything real you're crazy.
Personally I'd give the big F-U and do as little as possible to meet the requirements if they pushed this on private business.
<img ... alt="cool picture">. Done.
<FlashShit... alt="cool flash app">. Done.
Sue under the ADA.
:q! Oh crap, not again...
Given the fact that certain critical services are now accessed through the web
This is simply untrue. You can find plenty of banks that have ramps and allow you to come in and do whatever banking you need to do.
The web is a "nice to have", as much as nerds like to think it's the most important thing in history. Blind people got by 20 years ago going to their bank, they'll get by now. The "reasonable accommodation" banks, Target, Wal-Mart, etc... make is you can go into their store and conduct business.
These sites _should_ accommodate, but they should not be forced to.
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
Exactly, and well put. Everybody things the god damn web is sooooo important. "Oh noes, I can't prattle mindless gibberish on Facebook, and I can't pay my bills on the web and instead have to mail in checks or go to the bank like 50% of people probably still do anyway! The huge manatees!!!!".
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!
Me deciding who I let into my private property and what forms I make the property into causes direct harm to others? (and please don't resort to silly "if you make your property into the form of a gun and shoot me, yeah, it harms me" because that's not what we're talking about here)
Would it make more sense to make two different models and install handicap unfriendly ones in places where it is unlikely that handicapped users would want to use them?
Now *that* would be an unnecessary cost.
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.
So because of this theoretical possibility, you feel the right to force people to do certain things with their own private property?
Both people have other disabilities. The only guy was in London England which is scary enough to drive in... but when you see he has limited control over his hands you really wonder how on earth he can drive.
The other guy lives beside me. He appears to be deaf(ish... not totally). He also doesn't appear to move too quick.
So, I am freaked out because of what I perceive is their slow reaction time. Having never driven with either of them I cannot say for certain that it is a problem or not though...
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!