Scribd
Upload
44 views27 pages

Web Accessibility (Ilaw Presentation)

This document discusses web accessibility for disabled individuals and whether current laws and legal interpretations do enough. It outlines key definitions and legislation related to disabilities and accommodations. While the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 aimed to promote accessibility, it was written before widespread internet use, and courts have inconsistently applied it to online spaces. The document argues that many websites function as unique places in their own right and should be recognized as such under disability laws to ensure equal access for all.

Uploaded by

minnewebcon
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views27 pages

Web Accessibility (Ilaw Presentation)

This document discusses web accessibility for disabled individuals and whether current laws and legal interpretations do enough. It outlines key definitions and legislation related to disabilities and accommodations. While the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 aimed to promote accessibility, it was written before widespread internet use, and courts have inconsistently applied it to online spaces. The document argues that many websites function as unique places in their own right and should be recognized as such under disability laws to ensure equal access for all.

Uploaded by

minnewebcon
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 27

Accommodating

Disabilities:
Do current laws and court rulings do enough
for universal Web accessibility?

Kristofer Layon
JOUR 5552
May 8, 2008

As a web designer at a public institution, I’ve particularly interested in this topic. What kind of
liability am I exposed to? Yet I’m also interested in how this is shaping up regarding private (non-
public sector) sites. I may not stay here forever, so do the expectations change in another setting?
Or should they—what are the ethical obligations surrounding this issue?
Definitions

• What is a disability?
• What are accommodations for disabled
individuals?

Answers to these questions can be found in the ADA legislation itself; see definitions at the
beginning:
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm
To understand accommodations, it is best to begin with the familiar: curb-cuts. Note how the
concrete is newer surrounding the curb-cut; the legislation requiring these only dates back to 1990!
Curb-cuts are designed to assist those with physical impairments, esp. individuals in wheelchairs.
...Yet we’ve probably all ridden a bicycle onto a sidewalk using a curb-cut; there are also
unintended benefits of this application, that benefit the “non-disabled” alike.
Similarly, powered door-opening devices are also accommodations for the physically and visually
impaired...
...But I think we have all found ourselves in situations similar to this, where these devices are most
welcome!
Issues
• The Americans with Disabilities Act dates to
1990, which is pre-Internet (common usage).
• Cases are being brought against site owners,
alleging that their sites are inaccessible.
• Courts still look to ADA for guidance re.
web accessibility, and are forced to interpret.
• How can web designers know whether they
are meeting their legal obligations?
Questions

• How have courts interpreted the ADA in


respect to the World Wide Web?
• Do they appear to be on the right track of
maintaining the original spirit and mission of
ADA and related regulations?
• What are some ideas for improving how
Web accessibility is regulated?
Laws & Regulations
• Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
‣ “Place of public accommodation”
‣ Hotel, restaurant, movie theater, concert
hall, stadium, auditorium, bakery, grocery
store, clothing store, shopping center, dry-
cleaner, salon, travel service, museum,
library, park, zoo, school, social service
center, gym, golf course, bowling alley
The ADA was great for the bricks-and-mortar world, but it hasn’t been applied very successfully to
the “new world” of the online places. Then again, it dates to 1990. Similar to this 17th century map
not being very useful for people traveling to the Pacific Northwest today; it was made at a time
when this region was unknown (at least by those making this map!).
Laws & Regulations
• Section 508 (1998)
‣ Specifically addresses information
technology.
‣ “Requires that individuals with disabilities
have access to and use of information and
data that is comparable to that provided
to the public who are not individuals with
disabilities.”
‣ (unless an undue burden would be
imposed on the agency)
Demonstration

• graceful degradation
• assistive technology

(this part of the presentation demonstrated how styles can be turned off in sites that accommodate
by segregating layout and style in CSS, and also demonstrated speech support on the Mac and how
it can help the visually-impaired browse the Web)
Selected Cases
• National Federation of the Blind v.Target Corp.
(2006-present)
• Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines (2002)
• Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (1999)
• PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2001)
• Carparts Distrib. Ctr. v. Automotive Wholesaler’s
Ass’n (1994)

These cases all deal with the ADA, as it either applies to the Web or to other non-physical services
or places. Or, in the case of the PGA case, does show how a court can be progressive and maintain
the spirit of the ADA by being liberal in its interpretation. Then again, this is nullified by the Access
Now case, where the judge decided that it’s okay that a visually-impaired person couldn’t purchase
an airline ticket online!
Findings
• Courts inconsistently interpret the ADA.
• Courts seem to misunderstand the spirit of
what access to a place really means.
• Place as a physical location only, rather than
a place where:
‣ transactions occur or
‣ services are provided
Is this a place, according to the ADA?
Or this? Do we care that we can access just a space, or a place?
What makes a place have value that we want to enter it?
Getting back to the Target case, the scope of that trial has been limited by the “nexus” argument,
which simply looks at whether the web site hinders access to the services of the physical store.
The argument is that if there are any problems with the site, they aren’t necessarily serious....as
long as a reasonable alternative exists by visiting the store. Which works with Target.
But when you apply this to sites like Amazon.com, the logic quickly breaks down.
...Though if anyone can give me directions to the physical location, I guess I would be happy to use
this alternative if it’s available.
So what about Google? If this site were inaccessible to someone, what is their physical alternative?
There is a Google campus....but it’s sort of big. And I’m not sure they have counter or drive-up
service.
Similarly, social networking sites like Facebook. Yes, they do have physical counterparts in a
sense...
play video
...But not in one tidy, walk-up location that correlates with the site. And this video more
humorously explores how online services and comparable “real-world” services do not always
correlate anyway. Online places are distinct; they often provide similar services or transaction
opportunities, but in novel ways that do not always correspond well with their real-space
equivalents.
Recommendations

• Congress could amend the ADA to


specifically address the Web, or
• Congress could expand the reach of Section
508 to include private web sites, or
• Perhaps an appeals court will recognize
online places as places of public
accommodation?...

So...how to reconcile the current situation, with ADA being pre-Web? My central thesis starts with
recognizing that many web sites (especially “Web 2.0”) are unique places unto themselves, and need
to be recognized as such.
Limitations / Future Directions

• I have only started to look into how this


issue is treated internationally:
‣ Sweden, the U.K., and Australia are some
of the countries that appear to be
progressive re. Web accessibility
‣ e.g. Swedish National Guidelines for Public
Sector Websites

Perhaps more answers lie internationally. I’ve only begun to find some options to explore, but even
Sweden’s guidelines apparently only apply to the public sector. But curb-cuts and door openers
aren’t just on public sectors buildings in the U.S., are they?... Why treat “public” and “private” sites
differently, when there’s no real difference in how they are used or accessed?

You might also like