Designing computer programs that are inaccessible to the blind and visually disabled is just plain stupid -- if you want to make communicate a message or make money, why shut out your potential audience/customers by making your services unavailable? It's not difficult. Provide text equivalents for images, make sure users can navigate by keyboard instead of requiring mouse use... And these features benefit more people than just the blind.
But accessibility isn't just a good idea. It's the law. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was signed into law in July, 1990, mandates:
"No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
Assistive technology for the blind has been around for a long time. Kurzweil Reading Machines that translate the printed word into speech have been available for more than twenty years. However, with scanner prices dropping and recent advances in optical character recognition and voice technology, it's possible to install this kind of system on ordinary off-the-shelf PCs.
As with printed material, screen readers that translate the information on the computer screen into spoken word, have been around for decades.
On September 9, 1998, the Wall Street Journal had an article titled "Blind Web Users Campaign to `See' More of Cyberspace" (page B1) A quote: "In 1996, the U.S. Justice Department stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act, a groundbreaking law requiring government and other public facilities to make themselves accessible to the disabled, may apply to the Internet. To some, that has raised the possibility that disabled users could sue Web site operators who fail to make that site accessible." Last November, someone filed an ADA complaint against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in San Francisco because their site wasn't accessible (http://www.examiner.com/981112/1112blind.shtml)
Meanwhile, the FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 255, says "A provider of telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable."
Resolving the technical issues is becoming much easier. Over the last year, the computer industry has become aware of accessibility issues. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which provides the guidelines defining HTML and other Internet specifications, has set up a Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) to make the web more accessible (http://www.w3c.org/wai/). IBM Special Needs (http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/) not only develops products like the Home Page Reader, a new voice-enabled browser that does not require special hardware for speech synthesis, but also provides information on accessibility for other developers. Even Microsoft, whose Windows GUI displaced many blind computer users, now has full-time staff devoted to "incorporating disability-friendly features into its software" (Wingfield, 1998). The Center for Applied Special Technology has created a free program that can analyze web pages for accessibility to disabled users and generates a report rating the site in several areas. Web pages that pass Bobby's analysis are entitled to put an "approved" icon on the page. The URL is http://www.cast.org/bobby/
Frankly, I think it's about time. As the baby boomers start to age, this is going to become a much bigger issue. Better to get things correct now than have to go back and change it later.
In the last two days, there have been two workplace shootings. Clearly, it's an epidemic and needs to be stopped. To that end, all corporations should put metal detectors at all entrances, have armed police officers wander the halls, monitor all employee communications, and if anyone says anything slightly negative about a coworker, they should be sacked immediately. Have zero tolerance on negative attitudes in the workplace.
Propose that to coworkers and friends. If they are appalled, ask why it's acceptable treatment for our children.
[Hey, I'm a library science student -- I love this kind of research]
If you want to find out just what your rights are as a student, go to http://www.aclu.org/issues/student/hmes.html, which solely focuses on the civil liberties of students.
Several "Student Briefer" documents deliniate what rights you actually have.
http://www.aclu.org/students/slfree.html covers free expression, including dress codes and censorship issues.
http://www.aclu.org/students/slprivacy.html discusses privacy issues, including what to do when a school official or police officer wants to question or search you.
http://www.aclu.org/students/slfair.html has information on fair treatment and due process -- permissible school punishment and what rights you have if threatened with suspension.
Again, a couple excerpts:
FREE EXPRESSION:
In 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the Supreme Court held that students in public schools -- which are run by the government -- do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. This means that you can express your opinions orally and in writing -- in leaflets or on buttons, armbands or T-shirts.
You have a right to express your opinions as long as you do so in a way that doesn't "materially and substantially" disrupt classes or other school activities. If you hold a protest on the school steps and block the entrance to the building, school officials can stop you. They can probably also stop you from using language that they think is "vulgar or indecent," so watch out for the dirty words, OK?
Also, school officials may not censor only one side of a controversy. If they permit an article in the official school paper that says that premarital sex is bad, they may not censor an article that says premarital sex is good. . . . If you think your school's dress codes and hair codes are unfair and you want to challenge them, be aware that a court probably won't overturn the codes unless the judge finds that they're really unreasonable, or that they're discriminatory.
PRIVACY:
You've all heard cops on TV or in the movies say, "you have the right to remain silent..." Well, that's exactly what you should do if the police ask you questions. Remember anything you say can be used against you.
Just give the police your name and address and say you want to speak to your parents and a lawyer. As soon as you do that, the police must stop questioning you.
The police aren't allowed to search you unless they have a warrant signed by a judge or unless they are arresting you. However, if they believe that you have a weapon, they can frisk you, and if they feel a weapon, they can then search you. If the cops ask to search you or your car, don't resist the search, but let them know that you don't consent to it. . . . You have the right to remain silent if you're questioned by a school official. Usually there is no problem with answering a few questions to clear something up. But if you think that a teacher suspects you of having committed a crime, don't explain, don't lie and don't confess, because anything you say could be used against you. Ask to see your parents or a lawyer.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 in New Jersey v. T.L.O. that school officials, unlike police, may search students without a warrant when they have "reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated... either the law or rules of the school." But school officials may not search you unless they have a good reason to believe that you in particular -- not just "someone" -- broke a law or a school rule.
So, if a teacher thinks she saw you selling drugs to another student, she can ask you to empty your pockets and can search your backpack. But just because they think some students have drugs doesn't give them the authority to search all students.
And no matter what, the search must be conducted in a "reasonable" way, based on your age and what they're looking for. Strip searching is illegal in many states, and where it is allowed, there has to be a solid reason to suspect a particular student of having committed a really serious crime.
In some states, courts have ruled that a student's locker is school property, so the school can search it. But in other states, school officials must have "reasonable suspicion" that you are hiding something illegal before they can search your locker. Your local ACLU can fill you in on your state laws. But here's a word to the wise: don't keep anything in your locker that you wouldn't want other people to see.
DUE PROCESS/FAIR TREATMENT:
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees everyone in the United States something called "due process of law," which means you have the right to be treated fairly by people who are in positions of authority -- teachers, school administrators, -- and the police.
Let's say a teacher or school official accuses you of having done something wrong and wants to suspend you. Well, they can't just throw you out! You have a right to a hearing so you can tell your side of the story. This right was established by the U.S. Supreme Court way back in 1975 when it decided a case called Goss v. Lopez that involved some high school students who had been suspended without a hearing.
Another thing: if you're found guilt of something, the punishment can't be more serious than the misconduct was. So your school can't suspend you for just a minor violation. Or for something other kids did and only got detention for. . . . No matter how long the suspension, you have a right to notice of the charges against you -- that means being told exactly what you did that was wrong. You also have the right to a hearing before a person or people who are impartial, meaning they don't have anything to do with the incident, and they don't have any attitude towards you one way or the other.
If you deny the charges, the school officials have to tell you what evidence they have, and give you the chance to tell your side of the story. And if you're facing serious punishment, like suspension for more than 10 days, you have the right to be represented by a lawyer who can call witnesses. You also have the right to question or cross-examine your accusers and the witnesses against you. And you have the right to ask that a record be made of everything that happens at the hearing. You can use this record if you decide to appeal the decision.
But you don't have the right to a hearing for a minor punishment, such as being made to sit at the back of the class or detention.
The only way you school can suspend or expel a student without notice or a hearing is if they think the student is a danger to other students or to school property. But even then, they're obligated by law to give the student notice and a hearing as soon as possible after the expulsion. . . . And schools don't have the right to punish you if you broke a rule you had no reason to know even existed.
So you do have protections. Obviously, you'll have to check the rules at your school district, but if the officials mistreat you, make a stink. The more people who hear how ludicrious these policies are, the quicker they'll be dissolved. Try these on for size:
You can't be punished for violating the dress code unless they clearly told you beforehand what the rules are.
If a school official wants to search you, demand to know their reasons.
If officials insist on punishing you, make them explain exactly why they are punishing you. Not the general charge, like "dress code violations" but get specific -- coat was too long, outfit too black, whatever their excuse. That could sound extremely silly before an impartial hearing. If you think you can win, challenge it.
The punishment can't be more serious than the misconduct. So what punishments are less serious than a dress code violation? Changing outfits or a brief detention.
If you don't want to use ignorance as a defence, then go the other way. Ask the school for a written copy of their dress code. Get every detail. If they use a vague phrase like "Gothic attire" then demand an exact definition of what exactly is forbidden clothing. Then find all the loopholes or places where rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory. Can't bar hats unless there's an exception for yamulkes (Religious Jews keep their head covered at all times). If nobody is allowed to dress in black, then what are people in mourning supposed to do? If combat boots are prohibited, then what happens to ROTC? If miniskirts are forbidden, find out how many inches that is. Now you have three options:
Dress as provocatively as you can while always staying within the loopholes. [Wear skirts 1/2 inch longer than the limit. If all-black outfits are forbidden, wear mostlyblack. In my high school, students couldn't wear shorts, but girls could still wear skirts. So a large group of guys started wearing miniskirts to class.]
Be good little citizens and point out all the "good" kids who are also violating these new rules. If combat boots are forbidden, make the hall monitors write up the ROTC. If all black wardrobe is verbotten, ticket the entire swim team. Either the school will refuse to apply the code in these situations (which proves discriminatory enforcement) or the popular kids will get so fed up that theywill get these codes repealed.
Or, if you find enough holes, go ahead and challenge them in court.
Hope this information / these ideas helped. If there's a local branch of the ACLU in your neighborhood, they may have the specific rules for your neck of the wood. Otherwise, I do enjoy digging for data like this, so if you have further questions, post them as a response and I'll see what I can find out.
Schools have sent gothic children home to change clothes, confiscated students' trenchcoats and books, forced some kids into counseling, and suspended, warned and otherwise punished students solely due to their wardrobes. Wardrobes, mind you, that were no different than what they wore without incident only one week ago. The Federal Way school district in Washington State passed an ordinance forbidding anyone from wearing trenchcoats or dressing in all black (I guess mourners are just out of luck, huh?)
But this is still America, where the Constitution promises us freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and security against unreasonable search and seizures without probable cause.
Take a look at the 1969 Supreme Court case called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Disctrict. This argument could be very helpful for people trying to challenge these prejuicial policies.
In summary:
Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, noting that:
1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. 3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
To read the full text of the decision, go to http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navb y=case&court=US&vol=393&page=503 or go to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html and perform a citation search for 393 US 503.
There are some really good arguments here, and it doesn't get too bogged down in legalese. Much of it is still relevant to the recent cases wardrobe harassment. The following extracts all come from the full decision:
The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to "pure speech" [393 U.S. 503, 506] which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment.
First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.
The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures - Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."
The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students. Only a few of the 18,000 students in the school system wore the black armbands. Only five students were suspended for wearing them. There is no indication that the work of the schools or any class was disrupted. Outside the classrooms, a few students made hostile remarks to the children wearing armbands, but there were no threats or acts of violence on school premises. The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is [393 U.S. 503, 509] the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society. In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749. In the present case, the District Court made no such finding, and our independent examination of the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students. Even an official memorandum prepared after the suspension that listed the reasons for the ban on wearing the armbands made no reference to the anticipation of such disruption. On the contrary, the action of the school authorities appears to have been based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam.4 It is revealing, in this respect, that the meeting at which the school principals decided to issue the contested regulation was called in response to a student's statement to the journalism teacher in one of the schools that he wanted to write an article on Vietnam and have it published in the school paper. It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol - black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation's involvement [393 U.S. 503, 511] in Vietnam - was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible. In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend."
As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.
So, if you are still wearing Goth clothing to make a statement you may have a case here. If you do get harassed by officials, see what they make out of this. And otherwise contact your local ACLU, who may be in a position to help.
Slashdot Mirror
Designing computer programs that are inaccessible to the blind and visually disabled is just plain stupid -- if you want to make communicate a message or make money, why shut out your potential audience/customers by making your services unavailable? It's not difficult. Provide text equivalents for images, make sure users can navigate by keyboard instead of requiring mouse use... And these features benefit more people than just the blind.
But accessibility isn't just a good idea. It's the law. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was signed into law in July, 1990, mandates:
"No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
Assistive technology for the blind has been around for a long time. Kurzweil Reading Machines that translate the printed word into speech have been available for more than twenty years. However, with scanner prices dropping and recent advances in optical character recognition and voice technology, it's possible to install this kind of system on ordinary off-the-shelf PCs.
As with printed material, screen readers that translate the information on the computer screen into spoken word, have been around for decades.
On September 9, 1998, the Wall Street Journal had an article titled "Blind Web Users Campaign to `See' More of Cyberspace" (page B1) A quote: "In 1996, the U.S. Justice Department stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act, a groundbreaking law requiring government and other public facilities to make themselves accessible to the disabled, may apply to the Internet. To some, that has raised the possibility that disabled users could sue Web site operators who fail to make that site accessible." Last November, someone filed an ADA complaint against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in San Francisco because their site wasn't accessible (http://www.examiner.com/981112/1112blind.shtml)
Meanwhile, the FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 255, says "A provider of telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable."
Resolving the technical issues is becoming much easier. Over the last year, the computer industry has become aware of accessibility issues. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which provides the guidelines defining HTML and other Internet specifications, has set up a Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) to make the web more accessible (http://www.w3c.org/wai/). IBM Special Needs (http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/) not only develops products like the Home Page Reader, a new voice-enabled browser that does not require special hardware for speech synthesis, but also provides information on accessibility for other developers. Even Microsoft, whose Windows GUI displaced many blind computer users, now has full-time staff devoted to "incorporating disability-friendly features into its software" (Wingfield, 1998). The Center for Applied Special Technology has created a free program that can analyze web pages for accessibility to disabled users and generates a report rating the site in several areas. Web pages that pass Bobby's analysis are entitled to put an "approved" icon on the page. The URL is http://www.cast.org/bobby/
Frankly, I think it's about time. As the baby boomers start to age, this is going to become a much bigger issue. Better to get things correct now than have to go back and change it later.
In the last two days, there have been two workplace shootings. Clearly, it's an epidemic and needs to be stopped. To that end, all corporations should put metal detectors at all entrances, have armed police officers wander the halls, monitor all employee communications, and if anyone says anything slightly negative about a coworker, they should be sacked immediately. Have zero tolerance on negative attitudes in the workplace.
Propose that to coworkers and friends. If they are appalled, ask why it's acceptable treatment for our children.
If you want to find out just what your rights are as a student, go to http://www.aclu.org/issues/student/hmes.html, which solely focuses on the civil liberties of students.
Several "Student Briefer" documents deliniate what rights you actually have.
Again, a couple excerpts:
FREE EXPRESSION:
PRIVACY:
DUE PROCESS/FAIR TREATMENT:
So you do have protections. Obviously, you'll have to check the rules at your school district, but if the officials mistreat you, make a stink. The more people who hear how ludicrious these policies are, the quicker they'll be dissolved. Try these on for size:
If you think you can win, challenge it.
Ask the school for a written copy of their dress code. Get every detail. If they use a vague phrase like "Gothic attire" then demand an exact definition of what exactly is forbidden clothing. Then find all the loopholes or places where rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory.
Can't bar hats unless there's an exception for yamulkes (Religious Jews keep their head covered at all times). If nobody is allowed to dress in black, then what are people in mourning supposed to do? If combat boots are prohibited, then what happens to ROTC? If miniskirts are forbidden, find out how many inches that is.
Now you have three options:
Hope this information / these ideas helped. If there's a local branch of the ACLU in your neighborhood, they may have the specific rules for your neck of the wood. Otherwise, I do enjoy digging for data like this, so if you have further questions, post them as a response and I'll see what I can find out.
But this is still America, where the Constitution promises us freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and security against unreasonable search and seizures without probable cause.
Take a look at the 1969 Supreme Court case called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Disctrict. This argument could be very helpful for people trying to challenge these prejuicial policies.
In summary:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, noting that:
To read the full text of the decision, go to http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?nav
There are some really good arguments here, and it doesn't get too bogged down in legalese. Much of it is still relevant to the recent cases wardrobe harassment. The following extracts all come from the full decision:
So, if you are still wearing Goth clothing to make a statement you may have a case here. If you do get harassed by officials, see what they make out of this. And otherwise contact your local ACLU, who may be in a position to help.