[thelist] Flash, usability, accessibility

Laurel Nevans laureln at qwestinternet.net
Sat Jun 8 18:24:00 CDT 2002


> In summary, the degree to which the ADA applies to Web sites is
still
> unsettled, and Section 508 does not apply to private entities
receiving less
> than US$10,000 in federal funds.
>
> Moreover, even assuming the courts or congress answer the
question of
> whether the question of whether the ADA applies to Web sites in
the
> affirmative (which is very likely), it is far from certain that
/all/ sites
> will be so covered. Questions still exist such as what
constitutes a good or
> service and what is the /content/ of the good or service, and
whether
> alternative means of access--such as by voice phone service or
fax--might
> relieve the burden of accessibility.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
````

Very interesting point.  As a rehab person, I have taught many a
person to MEET accessibility requirements easily by putting their
alternative format materials on the web.  Contrary to popular
belief, most blind people don't read Braille, especially those
who became blind after they were school-aged.  Brailling
materials becomes unnecessary in current times, as long as you
provide electronic copies that the individual can access using a
screen reader or can emboss to Braille on their own system.
Before the web, many folks were meeting accessibility
requirements by having fax-on-demand or BBS access to documents.
Manufacturers can make large-print copies on instruction manuals
available on their web site, and their printing/mailing costs can
reduce considerably.  If things follow history, alternative means
of access will probably suffice for folks NOT covered by 508.
And I don't think private artists' sites, personal home pages,
and the like will ever be required to meet accessibility regs on
the web.  They might in a "perfect world", but we've got one
that's far from perfect.

Don't get me wrong folks, as a professional, an advocate, and a
person with my own disability now, I'd really LIKE it if
everything in the world was required to be accessible.  But even
CHURCHES are not REQUIRED to be accessible in the US, and many
are not.  PRIVATE CLUBS are exempt from most disability regs
(unless they get some form of federal $), and especially under
the current administration (which is actively trying to repeal
the ADA), I'll bet a lot of web sites and internet communities
will be determined to be "private clubs".  My bet is that if AOL
chose NOT to settle, they may have prevailed as a "private club",
and the NFB would have lost.  Am I happy about that?  Of course
not.  It's just the way things are going with today's political
climate in the US.

Again, IANAL, but I used to be a professional advocate that saw
MANY cases go "the other way".  I am still very active within the
disability advocacy community, and I participate in similar
discussions in disability advocacy forums.  We try to persuade
folks that accessibility equals good business, because we KNOW
the US courts will not always actively back us up.  Just look at
DOJ's pitiful record relating to ADA enforcement in the decade
that it's been in effect.

(And just try TRAVELING with a disability in a post 9/11 world,
DESPITE the passage of the Air Carrier Access Act.  But that's a
whole 'nother discussion<g>.)

Laurel




More information about the thelist mailing list