Accessibility Act For Websites; is this True? What All Does it Encompass?

Factual Questions
1

I was reading in a website design forum about there being laws that require commercial websites to abide by certain standards for accessibility by the disabled. What these standards are, I do not know. What I do know is that the people on the forum were adamant that frame and table usage on a website somehow violates this code of conduct. This is supposedly because not all browsers render frames and tables correctly, if at all (though that is obviously a small percentage). They suggested CSS as the perfect alternative, though in my research, I discovered that anything below Internet Explorer 4 or Netscape 4 is incapable of reading CSS, which would also prevent some people from seeing the website.

Is there any truth to any of this? How far does this extend? Surely not every home based website that sells merchandise abides by these supposed rules.

So that’s the straight dope on this?

2

I’m not sure what the deal is in the states, but this article covers the state of play in the UK.

3

I don’t have any answers, but I’d find it surprising if accessibility issues had backward-compatibility requirements.

4

ADA compliance is an issue in the US, especially for college and governmental websites. It is a potential civil violation, which means that someone can sue you if they have a complaint, but you aren’t going to be arrested or fined unless the suit succeeds. Personal websites aren’t exempt, but they aren’t likely to be taken to court, either (and you can easily make your site compliant; see below). Business sites do it mostly as good practice and to head off any legal action.

There is a site that allows you to check if your page is compliant: http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp They also sell software to check it.

There’s also a list of resources at http://www.sls.lib.il.us/accessibility/resources/web-resources.html

The rules are not onerous, however:

  1. Avoid frames (generally a good idea, anyway). If you need to use them, supply a non-frames version of the page; most non-graphic browsers will automatically go to that. (So far, “separate but equal” websites are allowed. As long as everyone has access to the same information, there’s no problem.)
  2. Every graphic should have a alt-text tag. It doesn’t have to be a full description, but should be something that gives an idea about what the graphic is.
  3. The highlighted text in links should indicate what they link to. “Click here” is no good. “Download the software” is good.
  4. Tables are allowed, but they need to be designed properly. The text in tables must make sense if read frame by frame, starting on the left, moving down the first column, then moving down the second, etc.
  5. Clever trick #1: If you do have a graphic intensive web page, put a one-pixel by one-pixel graphic as the first object on the page (in the color of the background). Give it an alt-text tag of “Go to non-graphics version” and link to a text-only page. Those using text readers can click and go there; those using regular browsers are not likely to put their cursor where the alt-text will display. I always loved this solution :slight_smile:
  6. Get a lynx web browser to check your pages. If they’re readable in that, they’ll be readable by a blind person using a screen reader.
5

Can you provide a cite for that? As far as I know, the relevant regulations are Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which appears to apply only to government websites and, to a lesser extent, government contractors. Nothing I’ve seen in my review of the various laws apply to commercial or personal websites beyond the fact that it’s just a good idea to comply with these design rules.

6

From here: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/

How is my personal website open to being sued under this Section? I see no backing for any suit against my personal pages, nor my business ones.

(And yes, some of the “rules” are quite onerous IMO. Apparently even having dark blue text on a pure white background is not high enough “contrast” according to “bobby” site you linked, which is ludicrous.)

Here’s the whole public domain text for discussion:

I see nothing in there that impacts me or my business.

7

Sorry if my comments on checking pages sound saracastic, RealityChuck. They were not intended to be; I combined two sentences and did not edit properly. :o

8

No offense taken. The threat to individual websites is admittedly theoretical, but someone could possibly sue an individual for noncompliance. Still, ADA compliance is usually good web design, and there’s no reason not to consider the issue.

As for businesses: if you are required to follow the ADA in other areas (more than 15 employees, it seems), then your website also falls under the ADA. See this discussion of the ADA compliance issue.

There is also another discussion at ImageWorks. It says “Courts are leaning toward saying that the ADA does apply [to businesses]” and that what this means is being determined “lawsuit by lawsuit.” I don’t think you’d want to be part of that process if you can help it. :slight_smile: That’s also why “separate but equal” is not an issue: if all you have to do is make one more click to get to the information, then the feeling is that the ADA is being served.

Most of the issues, BTW, have deal with blind users with screen readers. Most other disabilities do not cause an issue with web design.

9

Is there a First Amendment issue here? With the government compelling Web sites to have a certain look and feel? (Obviously not for government sites.)

10

Accessibility isn’t about dictating a particular look-and-feel, it’s about making sure that the content (that is, the text) is accessible to people who have trouble seeing, hearing, manipulating a mouse, or otherwise accessing the site with a traditional browser. If every site had to be look like Jakob Nielsen’s, the web would be a very boring place indeed.

That said, most sites are at least somewhat accessible. Text is text is text, and screen readers (like Jaws) are very good at extracting and presenting it. For visitors with partial vision, most modern browsers allow text to be made bigger on a page. The notable exception is Internet Explorer, which does not resize text sized in pixels (a very good reason to always use points, ems, percents, or some non-fixed unit).

The real problems are graphics, or text rendered as graphics (or Flash), and methods that make the page hard to navigate. The ALT tag has been around as long as HTML images have, but it’s easy, when you’re rushed or feeling lazy, to omit them. A page won’t validate unless validate all its images have ALT tags, but a tag with too much or too little information is just as useless as no tag. A brilliant painting or informational graph does a blind person no good if it’s tagged ALT="" (which does validate). On the flip side, some developers go too far and tag every little shim and background tile. (Imagine surfing a site in Jaws and hearing “This is a Spacer GIF” 200 times!)

Frames are bad for accessibility because they break up a site into chunks that are hard for a screen reader or text-only browser (like Lynx) to traverse. In fact, frames are pretty annoying even in a regular browser; I’d avoid them whenever possible. All-Flash sites are also a problem, since there’s currently no way to navigate them non-graphically.

The really easy solution is to build your sites with valid HTML or XHTML and use CSS for presentation. That way your content is available to everyone, and your cool design is available to those who want it and can use it.

11

A well designed, standards-compliant web page using CSS is still accessible and readable in a browser that doesn’t use CSS. It won’t look as good, but really: Someone using IE or Netscape 4 has long ago given up on web sites that look good.

experiment on retooling Slashdot.org with CSS - worth a look

12

Well spoken. This article (“To Hell with Bad Browsers”) from A List Apart is highly recommended reading. The days of catering to the Netscape 4 minimum are long past.