[thelist] targeting effectively

[Ben Dyer]

Let me back up first and give the usual speech, IANAL, etc., etc.  Don't
base legal decisions on anything in this e-mail, yadda, yadda.

On 02:30 PM 3/25/2002, David Kutcher said to me:
>The key words in your post were "public accommodation"  Is a corporate
>website a "public accomodation" or a "private facility"?

Depends on if it's publicly accessible or not.  If so, I would imagine
that, legally, the ADA would apply.  If it is, say, an intranet site, I
would imagine that it might not apply.  What *could* apply is if a disabled
employee/potential employee feels discriminated against/is unable to use
the site to perform their job function/etc.

>And again, there is no precedence for a website not being accessible and
>being sued successfully.

Ah, but when I used "precedence" before, I meant in the legal sense.  That
is, where there are actual cases exist to back up a law (out-of-court
settlements, like in the AOL case, don't count).  There is no legal
precedence (as far as I know) for accessibility on web sites.

*However*, given the fact that AOL was quick to settle could indicate that
they knew they were in the wrong or felt that they couldn't win.

>The buildings I live and work in do not have a ramp nor an elevator.  Does
>that mean the building owners will be sued under the ADA?  Doubtful.  And
>yes, I feel this is a very valid analogy.

Doubtful, but possible.  The ADA does provide provisions for when it is
simply impossible to remove barriers (steeper ramp gradients, narrower
doors), but that basically boils down to "create an accessible alternative":

<http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html#Anchor-95882>

>Sec.36.305 Alternatives to barrier removal.
>
>(a) General. Where a public accommodation can demonstrate that barrier
>removal is not readily achievable, the public accommodation shall not fail
>to make its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
>accommodations available through alternative methods, if those methods are
>readily achievable.

This seems to be akin with creating a secondary, accessible version of a
web site (like Amazon.com):

<http://www.amazon.com/access/>

>Secondly, If I am in this building and I hire a person with a disability...
>lets say they are wheelchair bound.  If I hire them, is it my problem, the
>building owner's problem, or the employee's problem that they can't make it
>up the stairs?

You got me.  Out of my league.  The ADA does allow for mediation, so I
suppose that if there were a complaint, it would be handled that way.

<http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/mediate.htm>

>And if I make a product that only works on IE 5.5, and an employee comes and
>says "well, I only use lynx", does that mean I am liable for not providing
>them with a lynx-ready version?

Again, dunno.  Depends on the circumstances probably: whether or not the
product is vital to the job, whether or not the product can be used for
other browsers (probably most can) or whether or not the employee can
somehow be given access to the product in the current browser (a lot of
screen readers just key off of Internet Explorer).

There are a lot of mitigating circumstances for accessibility.  But, by and
large, if you are taking steps to accommodate the disabled, there isn't a
problem.

And, I'm spent.

--Ben


Ben Dyer, Senior Internet Developer, Imaginuity Interactive
http://www.imaginuity.com/

                I'm reading your e-mail right now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   http://members.evolt.org/OKolzig37/     http://www.evolt.org/