Slashdot Mirror
Proposed ADA Requirements May Affect Public Internet Use
An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press is reporting on federal officials who want to expand the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to require accommodations by public websites, call centers, and technology providers. Hearings are scheduled in Chicago, Washington, and San Francisco. New rules could be implemented as soon as 2012. 'For more than a decade, the Justice Department has interpreted the ADA to apply to websites that offer goods and services. But now that idea could be clarified, and timetables for compliance could be set. ... The Justice Department is considering making it clear that some personal, noncommercial content would not be affected.'"
I use a content management system which, if it does not already implement alt tags for all images, can be easily coaxed to do so. And I use (so far as I am able) standards-compliant markup, so this is not going to affect me.
It's even long been possible to have accessible flash. So what's the problem exactly? It's not like the web would lose anything but dead weight...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...but I don't think most businesses (or most people, generally) have anything to object to here. What's likely to make people anxious about changes to the ADA is uncertainty over what those changes will involve.
As a web developer, my main concern is just knowing what I'll have to do or do differently. It would be helpful if articles like this -- or their summaries -- provided links to the proposed guidelines. Personally, I'd prefer to get a head start on this so that my clients and I don't end up rushing to implement changes as the last moment.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
equality but I am sick of mandated equality. Let the market decide
if store X does not want to cater to group Y (for whatever reason, infrastructure costs to accommodate group Y or simple dislike for group Y It should be the store owners prerogative.
In this day and age, if people are THAT upset about it, they can organize boycotts until store X either changes, or goes under.
here is a perfect example in NY
smoking indoors is banned.... NOW I believe the store should have a right to dictate whether or not they want to allow smoking in their PRIVATELY OWNED establishment
the customer will either complain, and ask that smoking be not allowed and not go back until it is, or if enough people are bothered, he will see it on his balance sheet and ban smoking himself.
the government getting involved is always the answer to a question NO one asked.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
There are too many flashy (pun intended) websites without any secondary way of seeing them. A proper public website should be navigable with a screen reader. As "Web 2.0" has marched on, it has only gotten worse. Some are even so user hostile that even those wanting a bit of privacy without Flash or javascript enabled are simply locked out.
Exceptions should be made for personal pages, but for organizations, governments, and commerce sites that deal with the public, there shouldn't be any excuse.
--
BMO
I've worked on a number of projects where we were explicitly ordered not to "waste our time" with anything that would help the disabled to use our web sites. There wasn't much we could do other than sneak in things that we thought the management wouldn't notice.
Maybe it's time that people with more clout than us mere developers let the managers know that something a bit more, uh, civilised is expected of them.
We can't do it on our own, even if we want to.
(Actually, I'm currently doing some pro bono work for some nonprofits that involves making their web sites more accessible. A curious part of this is that they've mostly been persuaded by the growing number of people carrying a "smart phone", and it's getting through their heads that web pages forced to width=1200 or requiring javascript are limiting their audience. While we're at it, maybe we can sneak in even more stuff that helps the visually impaired, etc.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
We already talked about this. The Chicago session mentioned in the summary already happened. I tried to tell you about it.
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
Unfortunately I think this kind of thing is necessary.
You can't rely on businesses to go out of their way to provide access to a relatively small group of people because, and I say this with no intended cruelty, they're probably not worth it. You can argue about PR and being "good guys" .. but at the end of the day, money is what makes the decision.
Unless you sell a very niche product, chances are the amount of business you do with disabled persons probably won't come close to covering the costs of providing access.
I think you really do need "the man" to come down and dictate that you have to make efforts to accommodate disabled persons.
Lets just hope they don't do so in a way which actually makes things worse (which they will, they always do..).
First off, you mixed apples and oranges. If person X wants to make a website that has a limited audience and exclude blind people, smart phones, etc. they may do so to a point. It sounds like this proposal takes that into account. However, if company Y wants to do the same thing, they can't. Companies do not get all the same rights as people. (And, in my opinion, this is a very good thing.) They have to abide by additional non-discrimination laws that include that they are not allowed to discriminate against the blind. For a long time, it has never been defined what that means on the web. This is just simply to establish one set of guidelines as to what that means rather than leaving it to a mis-mash of different court cases and give a time frame for companies to meet these guidelines.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Blind people sit in the seat behind the driver. Driver takes them to ATM. Roll down window. Use braille on drive up ATM. That is what Bind people use driver up ATM for. So they don't have to tell everyone their PIN.
Im all for equal access and equal opportunity but something really needs to be done about the damn ADA Trolls and the lawyers that feed their "pursuit" of money in the name of equality. I have known of 3 small businesses here in my area that have been basically attacked over non compliance even though there really isn't any real guidance provided in how to comply. Two of the businesses just decided to shut down rather than deal with the legal fees, the other is still fighting after 3 years over non-compliance issues he wasn't even aware of until being sued. I don't think many intentionally want to be seen as discriminatory and most would go out of their way to accommodate as they could afford to but the way the ADA is presented now does nothing but create hostility along with compliance, if half the time and effort put into litigation and enforcement was put into education and assistance for smaller businesses to get compliant it would go along way to giving both sides of the issue what they need without the animosity.
Well I kind of see the point of those who say the government shouldn't force private businesses to run their business a certain way. But I also see that that is the same argument of the manager who refused to serve black customers at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
It boils down to the age-old questions: the conservative asks "what kind of government can we tolerate?" and the liberal asks "what kind of society do we want to be?"
So I think you're going too far to say "there shouldn't be any excuse --" private property rights and general freedom from government interference are strong and valid arguments. On the other hand I don't want to turn back the clock to 1963, either. Life is better with civil rights legislation. It's easier to be proud to be an American. So I'm inclined to take your side and say to Web site operators, "suck it up, follow the law."
I also think the government should be the first to implement its own usability requirements... stating with the Web site of the court that handed down this decision.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
My employer is publicly traded. I'm unaware of any rule/law/etc that requires us to produce braille product literature.
Explain to me HOW a website with the same information is ANY different.
I always figured it was because the keys were mass-produced, and it's cheaper to just make a few more with braille still on them then to create special "Drive-through ATMs"
Actual reason for braile on drive up ATMs: it's cheaper to make one model of ATM buttons and have some that don't get fully used than to make two molds for ATM keys, one without braille. To use the analogy backwards from how I originally heard it, it's like male nipples. Nipples start developing before sex determination, and it's simpler just to leave them there but unused than to come up with a system to remove them in males.
You don't have to like it, but getting along with civilization is generally a good thing, especially when you don't have to worry about boycotts.
So people who are unable to use his site are going to punish him by refusing to buy from him?
Sounds like a plan.
If you knew anything about how the technology works, you would know that closed captioning at theaters is a matter of installing a LED projector at the back of the theater and providing the viewers with a plexiglass reflector that they stick into their cup holder. It is not a question of retrofitting every seat. The tech is dirt cheap.
And even as cheap as it is, in the greater metro Seattle area, there are only 4 theaters that have it. And not 4 theater complexes. Literally 4 theaters. For example, the 11-screen complex in Pacific Place has a single theater equipped with it. And most the time, the complex choses not to present movies with captions in that particular theater, and pretty much never does so on weekends. If the theaters equipped more movies with the captioning devices, I would go to the movies more often. But the fact is that the market power of deaf and hard of hearing people isn't big enough to warrant it.
Mandating companies to take reasonable measures to accommodate the needs of disabled patrons when the market can't is part of belonging to a civilized society.
I have food allergies. I expect an honest answer if I ask you a question about ingredients. If you don't know, tell me you don't know and I will go somewhere else.
I do NOT expect everybody on earth to remove all traces of soy from everything so that I don't get sick. That's ridiculous.
You want to know what's also ridiculous? I have seen parking spaces at busy malls that go unused for YEARS because they are handicapped spaces. Why are there so many spaces when there are so few handicapped people? I appreciate the spaces for people like my friend who was handicapped for many years, but even he agreed that the sheer number of spaces was way too high.
I like America's sense of caring for certain unfortunate groups, but the balance is too far the other way these days.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
who says my male, erogenous nipples go unused?
How do blind people know how to find the braille signs? Is there a standard for where they'll be placed, or do they just have to walk down the hallway running their hands against the wall until they find one?
I was on a cruise ship last month, and I came upon the most brilliant braille placement ever. It was on the underside of the hand rail of the staircases. As you go up or down the stairs, you can't help but feel the braille. It's right at your fingertips.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Actual reason for braile on drive up ATMs: it's cheaper to make one model of ATM buttons and have some that don't get fully used than to make two molds for ATM keys
That analogy just doesn't hold true on the internet. There are dozens of browsers, hundreds of protocols and underlying technologies that were designed to present information visually, often in a multimedia format. An ATM serves a single purpose -- even just the tiny section of the internet we call the web serves a nearly infinite number of purposes, and have so many competing technologies and layouts, ways of doing things, etc., that applying any kind of standard to it is largely a waste of time. The protocols that run the internet and the design decisions and processes that created them are organic, occasionally irrational (browser cookies come to mind), and surprise the hell out of anyone who's studied it in any detail that it works at all. Bottom line: It's gonna cost a lot of money.
"The Justice Department is considering making it clear that some personal, noncommercial content would not be affected.'"
And 'some' is where the whole thing falls apart. I see no such legislation saying that the government is willing to pay web designers (or their companies) a stipend for the labor required to make their site ADA compliant. And even if they did, the conversion/update costs would vary wildly from site to site, with some needing very little work and others requiring a complete overhaul. It is neither fair, nor reasonable, to expect any business to redesign their websites to be accessible to 5% of the population. And not to be callous, but from a business standpoint -- why would you try to market to a small portion of the population that lives on disability checks? They don't have much disposable income, so it is unlikely they'll be buying whatever you are selling.
And excemptions for personal or noncommercial content is questionable as well -- we've already had states try to force people to buy a business license for running a blog that (le gasp!) had a few advertisement banners by calling it a "commercial enterprise". The government is still (30 years on) completely retarded when it comes to understanding how the internet works. I mean, they still think pissing away billions on copyright law enforcement is doing some good.
If these people are serious about making the internet more accessible, they need to start by investing money at the head of the problem, not papering over its ass -- they need to get involved in standards committees, work with companies to produce protocols, technologies, and access methods that simplify the process of organizing and processing information that is usually presented visually in a non-visual way. And they're going to have to deal with a lot of resistance from advertisement companies and private industry that have thrived on bypassing standards, screwing things up, and being generally annoying in order to eek out a little extra profit.
Projects like NoScript and AdBlocker are damned useful for this because they cut out the crap on a webpage and reduce what's there to what is important ... rather than listening to "Breaking news -- A fire has broken out in... try out the new 2007 lexus... 2031 West 94th street, where a mother of three was ... have you tried new Charmin Ultra?" You get the idea. The first step in accessibility is clutter elimination and reducing the design to its barest essentials; Because while we can browse through a page in a few seconds, when you have to LISTEN to the page being read to you instead of speed reading, now you're looking at minutes of time.
Just a thought...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The one blind person I once tutored at my university completely ignored all those signs -- she had no way of knowing they were there, and she didn't spend time groping the walls looking for signs that might or might not be there. Elevator buttons and such yes, but random wall signs no.
/offtopic
who says my male, erogenous nipples go unused?
They aren't erogenous. Guys just don't get off on nipple play unless they're on drugs or something. Maybe they just can't stand having to play with themselves for hours at a go on the off chance they'll get a happy for their efforts, I don't know... but the vast majority of men put their dick in their right hand and pull. I know this because I've caught them waaay too many times doing it. I will be well and truly shocked the day I walk in on a guy laid back in bed looking at pictures of naked girls... and have his hands down his shirt instead of his pants.
P.S. Lefties, I don't mean to leave you out. There's nothing wrong with fapping with your left hand, no matter what your dad said.
P.P.S. Mods -- have a sense of humor. Alternatively, don't mod this comment and instead get up, walk over to the bed, and prove me wrong. -_-
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
That's not true. ATMs are specifically designed to be usable by the blind. They beep when numbers are input and some of the newer ones sport headphone jacks for the integrated screen reader.
Its also a typical case of mission creep. Every bureaucracy must justify their existence and continue to expand in order to justify more money and more people. These federal monsters need to be clawed back before the US faces European rates of taxation to pay for it all.
Not to mention the possibility of large fines when my (commercial) websites aren't compliant with some obscure requirement in the new guidelines.
As the fines and penalties becomes stiffer and the rules become more complex and difficult, will we end up with ADA trolls who find ADA issues and then either offer "remediation consulting services" or an anonymous phone call to whoever enforces the ADA?
Why should someone who is disabled (most likely not caused by a choice) be given less access?
Also, you need to think things through a little. Requiring every company that does business with the public to have "blind software compatible web pages" or whatever will probably negatively impact a large number of people *without* improving the situation for handicapped. Let me give you an example:
My neighborhood pizza shop has a web menu. It's really basic, just some scanned jpegs of their actual menu. It's a convenience for me, and it probably costs the business like 30 bucks a year for a domain name plus some cheap shared hosting. For a business this is pretty well worth the investment as a convenience to their customers.
Now say ADA comes along, all of the sudden that business has to make their website menu "handicapped capable". The owner isn't an HTML writer. It's just some basic image tags on a red background. No way does he have the ability to write JAWS compatible code, etc. So now he has to look for a website admin to write and maintain the code every time he wants to change his menu, probably costing a thousand dollars a year or more plus lots of extra hassle. So what's the Pizza shop owner do? He says "fuck it" and pulls the web menu. The situation didn't improve at all for the hadicapped person, there is still no web menu, but now I no longer have a web menu either.
All this is going to do is fuck with small business a ton and make them less competitive or able to use the web to promote themselves. The large conglomerates will absorb the costs with their financial mass, and the little guys get hurt. Plus it just paves the way for another wave of troll-profiteering lawsuits.
Also, not being able to do things like everybody else is the negative consequence of having a disability. I never said they chose to be disabled. However, reality is reality. If you are disabled, you just have to accept that there are some things you might not be able to do. Is it unfortunate? Absolutely, however, it's just how it is. The guy with no arms just isn't going to be very good at tennis.
You also need to realize financial resources are limited. We need to spend them appropriately where they can have the most impact. The needs of the many generally outweigh the needs of the few.
I'm all for making sure handicapped people have access to necessary services... however *requiring* movie theaters to provide closed captioning devices at every seat is ridiculous. Watching a movie is is not a life necessity. If the demand is there, and the people that need it are willing to pay a price that makes business sense, then the theaters will have Closed captioning equipment. If it doesn't make business sense, then they won't.
I think another poster more knowledgeable as to the technology vis a vis the deaf punched a hole in that, so I'll defer to the expert there.
What the fuck is with the government wanting to tell *PRIVATE* business who they have to make non-mandatory (ie. entertainment) products available to?
Can you think of another minority to which a broad array of what you'd call non-essential services are denied? As an example, we'll take the on-demand service provided by my cable company. There is absolutely no way I can access that service through my set top box without having someone sighted present ... which translates, really, to "no way that I can access the service through my set top box". Unfortunately, "letting the market decide" there is a bit problematic, since a large chunk of that market, and a large chunk of various television providers, think that blind people don't watch TV. If I had to wait for the collective ignorance of a society that generally defecates themselves when faced with my condition, or generally finds my navigating our local public transit system to get to work of a morning "an inspiration", to catch up with reality, I'd be waiting a couple of centuries.
ADA is mostly bullshit anyways. Hey, let's also make sure we have a wheel chair ramp for bungee jumping, because you never know when some cripple with deteriorating bones might want to plunge down a hundred feet with only their legs attached to a giant rubber band.
Oh, wonderful comparison. I'll not spell out the differences between lack of access because of a safety issue (no one with bones that fragile should be bungee jumping) and lack of access because of an ignorance issue (But wait! That iPhone has a touch screen! Wouldn't you rather have a special phone for the blind?)
Why not require the same Closed captioning devices for normal theater (plays) as well? How about all sporting events too? Gotta have CC devices at the seats so you can hear the refs calls.
Why not?
Maybe we need to throw some braille street signs in there too, wouldn't want the blind to be discriminated against when driving a car, you know?
There needs to be an equivalent to "Godwin's Law" to describe the invocation of either blind people driving (impossible due to current technological limitations) or blind people watching TV (possible, but assumed to be impossible) when these discussions come up. Looking at this logically, which you've completely failed to do here, if there were a means for blind people to be able to drive (cf. Google's self-driving cars), wouldn't it be more cost-effective to use, say, existing GPS infrastructure, already established map providers, and other existing technology? The navigation system to mitigate the lack of ability to see street signs is already in place (it's what allows me to download a map, copy it to my phone, and travel anywhere I take a notion).
The bottom line is, if there is money to be made, some company *will* do it voluntarily. If the market can't support it, oh well, tough break, it doesn't happen.
Again, that presupposes that the site's creator even presumes that blind people can use the Web. I'd wager that, until about five seconds before you read these
I was on a cruise ship last month, and I came upon the most brilliant braille placement ever. It was on the underside of the hand rail of the staircases.
My braille is on the underside of my dick.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
I don't think requiring businesses to foot unprofitable costs, when there is no negative impact to the public at large is reasonable.
But it's not about the negative impact to the public at large. It's about the impact on individuals. Society isn't just about the sum of happiness, it's also about how the weakest and least able in society are treated. We could just say "well, tough, you're in a wheelchair", but I'm pretty much in favour of society actually trying to improve the lives of people who can't do anything about their situation, to give them a more comfortable life.
And yes, businesses aren't charities, but they are part of society. That means that they, for instance, get various legal protections (regardless of how much tax they pay). A fire breaks out and a fire engine will be there quickly to put it out. There isn't a sensible alternative to private enterprise providing access to private businesses. You can't do it through more benefits, so it's straightforward and fair on all businesses to just implement accessibility.
Personally, I'm thankful that I'm not the guy in the wheelchair. And I'm happy for my coffee shop to stick a couple of extra pennies on the price of my mocha so that the guy in the wheelchair to come in.