[thelist] Flash, usability, accessibility

[Laurel Nevans]

> Thus spake Rebecca Milot-Bradford:
> > And according to the US Justice Department, in an opinion
letter dated
> > September 9, 1996, "Covered entities under the ADA are
required to provide
> > effective communication, regardless of whether they generally
communicate
> > through print media, audio media, or computerized media such
as the Internet.
> > Covered entities that use the Internet for communications
regarding their
> > programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those
communications
> > through accessible means as well."
> >
> > What leads you to believe that this does NOT apply to web
sites?

One comment on this: Note that COVERED entities means employers
w/ 15 or more employees.  Many web sites have fewer than 15
employees, esp. mom-and-pop operations.  Also remember that
"contractors" are not "employees" in this case.  Furthermore,
there's an "undue hardship" clause that MIGHT apply in terms of
retrofitting a web site.

IOW, if a site is run by a company w/ 15 or fewer employees, they
don't have to be accessible.  If any company can successfully
argue that it would cause them "undue hardship" economically to
retrofit a site, they won't have to.  I'll bet we see "undue
hardship" being pled IF web site cases ever actually make it to
court.  (It cost me 5k to have it done the 1st time, and probably
twice that to fix it.  We just can't afford that right now.)

That's why, as a designer, it's IMPORTANT to build it right the
first time, and to convince your client that accessibility wont
cost them extra.

I KNOW I'm beginning to sound like I'm batting for the other team
here, but really, I'm not.  It's just that the US DOJ doesn't
have a good track record when it comes to enforcement, the
current political regime is actively trying to repeal the ADA,
and there are few (if any) court precedents established when it
comes to ADA and the internet.

I have to agree that thumping the law books is NOT the best way
to promote accessibility on the web, especially when it comes to
small business sites.  Large corporations (like P&G, previously
referred to in this thread) usually fall under Rehab Act section
508, as they're getting some sort of federal funds (job training,
research, etc.).  Accessibility under 508 is pretty clear;
accessibility under ADA is not.

My client who has one employee. 10 contractors, tons of
international affiliates, and a brochure-ware type web site DOES
NOT fall under either ADA or 508.  However, he has a strong
international user base, knows tons of folks on clunky, older
systems will be accessing the site, knows most of his users
wouldn't know how to upgrade unless someone did it for him, etc.
He has chosen to make MOST of his site fully comply with WAI
guidelines, as it accommodates folks using ancient or
low-bandwidth connections as well.  He has a few things that
might not meet the letter of the WAI, but they're all fluff.  The
site is 100% usable by any browser because it makes good sense to
do so, business wise, not b/c the ADA requires it.  None of the
legal arguments could persuade this client b/c they just don't
apply.

Similarly, the nail salon on the corner does not need to meet 508
or ADA guidelines.  They're a 5 person, one location, small
business.  It's easier to convince them to use ALTS on their site
by showing them what the site looks like in a browser with images
turned off.  But try to convince them to add D-links to their
gallery of nail designs, and they'll ask what the point is, as
one has to SEE the designs to appreciate them.  They'll laugh at
you and ask what blind person is cruising nail design galleries.
They might care more about accommodating keyboard surfers, as
hands are a nail salon's business, but not because "it's the
law".

Artists often do not care about making their sites usable by
blind folks, especially if they're primarily portfolio oriented.
They might care about whether a blind person could order a gift
from their site, but would probably not care if blind folks could
use the gallery.  And again, neither ADA or 508 would probably
apply (NEA grantees excepted.)

As a designer, I think it is important to outline the "choices"
your clients make, in writing, in order to CYA.  This includes
choices about browser compatibility, accessibility, etc.  And I
think it is important to understand when and where the laws
apply, so you can discuss them with your client from the
beginning.  I had a private preschool that approached me to do a
site for them.  In our initial meetings, I discussed 508
compliance, and although they had children attending on
scholarship (meaning Federal funds), they had their hearts set on
a framed site with lots of flashy elements, and said they weren't
concerned with accessibility.  Unfortunately, I found myself "too
busy to take on their site under the discussed development time
lines", or IOW, I ran the other way.

Would I run from the Nail salon?  Probably not.  Would I try to
convince them to accommodate the widest-user base possible?
Absolutely.  Would I tell them they couldn't have a flash movie
spotlighting their unique take on nail patterns because it would
not be accessible to users w/ disabilities?  Probably not.  I'd
do my best as a designer to design the flash component correctly,
so it WAS accessible, but would not worry about law suits if it
turned out not to be.

Laurel