accessability for browser application

[Karl Groves]

No "Don't discriminate against employees on the grounds of their
disability" laws? You sure? Any case citations to back this up?

Whitecrest must not have heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act...

There is no case law that has really established its applicability for
*intranet* accessibility within the private sector, but that is just a
matter of time. The fact of the matter is that the biggest reason why
companies have elevators, handicapped parking, etc. is from the ADA.

It is law, however for Government Entities. All agencies must comply with
Section 508 of the ADA

-Karl

 

[Spartanicus]

The fact that you seem to not know the difference between Australia and
Australasia (*) precludes any further discussion on the matter.

The point remains despite the error, but I understand that you choose
not to address it.

 

[Chris Morris]

Yes search for google "anti discrimination laws and exemption" you will
be rewarded with tons of examples.

Hmm. There's the UK small business exemption (due for repeal), there's
exemptions for armed forces, various things. But not much.

I certainly can't find anything saying that intranets are exempt from
disability legislation that affects public websites, which is what you
claim; I can find things that say the opposite
(e.g. http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_accessibleintranets.hcsp)
- if the situation is different in the US or Australia I can't find
anything to back that up.

 

[Whitecrest]

Whitecrest must not have heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act...

See my last post about searching for exceptions. there are a ton of
them INCLUDING that Congress does do not have to follow any of the anti
discrimination laws at all.

It is law, however for Government Entities. All agencies must comply with
Section 508 of the ADA

www.nasa.gov doesn't comply (and use to state that on their site with an
apology)

 

[Whitecrest]

Hmm. There's the UK small business exemption (due for repeal), there's
exemptions for armed forces, various things. But not much.

There are quite a few exemptions out there. The biggest being "undo
burden" that one is pretty much a catch all for any excuse not to be
accessible to the handicapped.

§ by treating him or her less favourably (without justification) than
other employees or job applicants because of his or her disability, or
§ by not making reasonable adjustments (without justification).

Key words here are "without Justification" (Called undo burden in 508)

My company bought this software, then we hired Sue, the lady with the
vision problem. We can not afford a new version or a wide screen
monitor. Poof, Justified. Also with 508 (I can not speak for the UK
here) but a site can be completely in accessible to all the handicapped
people in the world, except for one single page that some government
agency needs to use. That is considered an accessible site based on the
508 rules.

Please note, I am a proponent for accessibility, (I am frequently
contracted to deal with Flash accessibility issues). I am just pointing
out the laws are bogus, full of exemptions, and for the most part do not
apply to non government agency.

For the OP, the bottom line is, if the Company signed off on the design
of the Web application, then you are in the clear. If the company has
issues, then they have to pay for them.

 

[Disco Octopus]

My company bought this software, then we hired Sue, the lady with the
vision problem. We can not afford a new version or a wide screen
monitor. Poof, Justified.

I just wanted to make a comment on this comment from you.

We actually have offered (or suggested that we would if she wanted) to
purchase a wide plasma wall mounted screen for the lady with the disability,
but she has said bluntly "Nope. Don't want such things on my desk/office".
This may or may not be relevant now, but this statement does have potential
to be quoted in future debates if necessary.

 

[Mark Parnell]

do you have a link to said legislation?

http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/#Australia has several links to related
stuff, including the relevant legislation.

 

[Spartanicus]

http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/#Australia has several links to related
stuff, including the relevant legislation.

Thanks, afaics the legislation can only be used if for example access to
web content is denied for some reason. Using px sized fonts doesn't
qualify as discrimination under the legislation. Thus rf's statement
that Australian "Government departments are required, by law, to not
discriminate against any person, for any reason, in any way." seems
incorrect.

Australian government commissioned web site developers are supposed to
comply with WAI guidelines, but guidelines are impossible to enforce
since it's impossible to define accessibility in a rigid objective
manner.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Thanks, afaics the legislation can only be used if for example access to
web content is denied for some reason. Using px sized fonts doesn't
qualify as discrimination under the legislation.

"The World Wide Web Consortium has developed web access guidelines, and
non-compliance with them by the operators of Australian websites is in
breach of the Act"
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/media_releases/2002/72_02.html

Thus rf's statement
that Australian "Government departments are required, by law, to not
discriminate against any person, for any reason, in any way." seems
incorrect.

It isn't quite as black and white as that, but it certainly puts a fair
onus on authors to conform. The legislation in question defines 2 types
of discrimination.

Direct:
"For the purposes of this Act, a person (discriminator) discriminates
against another person (aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability
of the aggrieved person if, because of the aggrieved person's
disability, the discriminator treats or proposes to treat the aggrieved
person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are
not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a
person without the disability."
http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/311/0/PA000090.htm

Indirect:
"For the purposes of this Act, a person (discriminator) discriminates
against another person (aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability
of the aggrieved person if the discriminator requires the aggrieved
person to comply with a requirement or condition:

(a) with which a substantially higher proportion of persons without the
disability comply or are able to comply; and
(b) which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the
case; and
(c) with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to comply."
http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/311/0/PA000100.htm

Not as clear-cut as Richard seemed to indicate (what legislation is?),
but still pretty damning if you don't follow the WAI guidelines.

Australian government commissioned web site developers are supposed to
comply with WAI guidelines,
but guidelines are impossible to enforce
since it's impossible to define accessibility in a rigid objective
manner.

They managed to enforce it for the Olympics site. Damages awarded were
approx $20000.

 

[Whitecrest]

I just wanted to make a comment on this comment from you.
We actually have offered (or suggested that we would if she wanted) to
purchase a wide plasma wall mounted screen for the lady with the disability,
but she has said bluntly "Nope. Don't want such things on my desk/office".

Sounds like she has a chip on her shoulder to me, and nothing you could
do would please her.

 

[Barry Pearson]

[snip]

Australian government commissioned web site developers are supposed
to comply with WAI guidelines, but guidelines are impossible to enforce
since it's impossible to define accessibility in a rigid objective manner.

They managed to enforce it for the Olympics site. Damages awarded were
approx $20000.

Have there been any other notable cases? Anywhere?

That particular cases gets quoted in the UK quite a bit. Enforcement of the
UK's DDA 1995 (Disability Discrimination Act), for web sites, is years behind
Australia, and no-one really knows what will happen in court. That particular
case appears to hinge on some extreme aspects that an organisation could avoid
while still having a site with problems.

I'm suspicious that I don't see other major cases getting cited.

 

[rf]

[snip]

Australian government commissioned web site developers are supposed
to comply with WAI guidelines, but guidelines are impossible to enforce
since it's impossible to define accessibility in a rigid objective

manner.

They managed to enforce it for the Olympics site. Damages awarded were
approx $20000.

Have there been any other notable cases? Anywhere?

That particular cases gets quoted in the UK quite a bit. Enforcement of the
UK's DDA 1995 (Disability Discrimination Act), for web sites, is years behind
Australia, and no-one really knows what will happen in court. That particular
case appears to hinge on some extreme aspects that an organisation could avoid
while still having a site with problems.

I'm suspicious that I don't see other major cases getting cited.

People are being slightly more careful now methinks.

Read the full details of the case.

This bloke complained to the OOC that he could not use their web site. They
OOC ignored him.

He complained to the government. The government had a go at the OOC about
it. The OCC ignored them.

The government issued a "fix it now" to the OOC. The OCC ignored them.

The government (IIRC) then issued a "show cause or take it down". The OOC
ignored them.

The government got cranky and fined them. The OOC paid up and promptly
ignored them (of course $20000 was a pittance to the OOC). It was only after
the court case and subsequent fine that the press heard about it.

The OOC still did not fix the site but by then the games were over

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Whitecrest]

Have there been any other notable cases? Anywhere?

There was a case a yea ago (or so) where a guy tried to sue south west
air because he could not use their web site as he was blind. I believe
he lost.

How ever, while the cast was in the courts, Orbitz.com removed their
Flash navigation. Coincidence?

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

There was a case a yea ago (or so) where a guy tried to sue south west
air because he could not use their web site as he was blind. I believe
he lost.

Not quite. It seems they're still arguing over questions of jurisdiction.


Matthias

 

[Whitecrest]

Not quite. It seems they're still arguing over questions of jurisdiction.

"Judge: Disabilities Act Doesn't Cover Web
by Declan McCullagh; CNET News.com; October 25, 2002
A federal judge ruled Friday that Southwest Airlines does not have to
revamp its Web site to make it more accessible to the blind. In the
first case of its kind, U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz said the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies only to physical spaces,
such as restaurants and movie theaters, and not to the Internet."

 

[Spartanicus]

"The World Wide Web Consortium has developed web access guidelines, and
non-compliance with them by the operators of Australian websites is in
breach of the Act"
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/media_releases/2002/72_02.html

The legislation itself
http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/311/top.htm does not mention
WAI guidelines anywhere. The act can be used in case of a total refusal
to deliver content.

Afaics the SOCOG case succeeded because part of the site's content was
totally unavailable to non visual access. Afaics not providing alt
content for non decorative images could be considered as a breach of the
act, font sizing in pixels and many other accessibility issues are
another case entirely.

 

[Karl Groves]

The legislation itself
http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/311/top.htm does not mention
WAI guidelines anywhere. The act can be used in case of a total refusal
to deliver content.

Afaics the SOCOG case succeeded because part of the site's content was
totally unavailable to non visual access. Afaics not providing alt
content for non decorative images could be considered as a breach of the
act, font sizing in pixels and many other accessibility issues are
another case entirely.

Lets not forget sites whose content relies on client-side scripting to
display.
IMO, that is a much more grave case of neglecting accessibility than
alternative text...

-Karl

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

"Judge: Disabilities Act Doesn't Cover Web
by Declan McCullagh; CNET News.com; October 25, 2002
A federal judge ruled Friday that Southwest Airlines does not have to
revamp its Web site to make it more accessible to the blind. In the
first case of its kind, U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz said the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies only to physical spaces,
such as restaurants and movie theaters, and not to the Internet."

Right. What I read in
<http://www.nls.org/conf2004/at-related-legal-developments.htm#_ednref13>
led me to believe the appeal's still pending, but I guess I got that
wrong. Here's an interesting analysis of the court decision:
<http://www.bytowninternet.com/southwest.html>.


Matthias

 

[Barry Pearson]

People are being slightly more careful now methinks.

Read the full details of the case.

[snip]

I did, (or at least enough to understand what you say), and I think you just
confirmed my view on this. The OOC not only didn't take accessibility
seriously, they didn't take the law seriously either. (I thought they had
said, probably falsely, "much too expensive to change", rather than just
ignoring it?) My reading is that they could perhaps have avoided the fine by
not making the government go cranky, with some technical changes, and still
not had a fully accessible web site.

The danger is that web site publishers will learn enough to make their court
case go away, (or not arise), without solving sufficient accessibility
problems. It is a bit like what happens with benchmarks - you get good at
achieving the benchmark, without necessarily being able to do anything useful.

I wonder how easy it would be to develop a web site that achieved a
tick-in-the-box for all the WAI guidelines, while still being essentially
inaccessible?

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

I wonder how easy it would be to develop a web site that achieved a
tick-in-the-box for all the WAI guidelines, while still being essentially
inaccessible?

Well, Kevin Leitch claims this is already the case for most accessible
sites: They are not accessible to people with a "Learning and
understanding" disability. See
<http://www.juicystudio.com/wcag-myth.asp>. The article is much too
aggressive and accusatory for my taste, but he does have a point.


Matthias