# Accessibility Act For Websites; is this True? What All Does it Encompass?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 3, 2004, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874 "2004-12-03T09:05:16Z")
**Posts on this page:** 12
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Duderdude2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duderdude2)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/1 "2004-12-03T09:05:16Z")
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?
---
### Author:  [@garius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garius)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/2 "2004-12-03T09:24:43Z")
I’m not sure what the deal is in the states, but [this](http://www.alistapart.com/articles/accessuk/) article covers the state of play in the UK.
---
### Author:  [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/3 "2004-12-03T13:21:17Z")
> [@Duderdude2](#):
>
> 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.
I don’t have any answers, but I’d find it surprising if accessibility issues had backward-compatibility requirements.
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/4 "2004-12-03T13:42:32Z")
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](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](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 🙂
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.
---
### Author:  [@micco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/micco)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/5 "2004-12-03T14:15:44Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> Personal websites aren’t exempt, but they aren’t likely to be taken to court
Can you provide a cite for that? As far as I know, the relevant regulations are [Section 508](http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm) 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.
---
### Author:  [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/6 "2004-12-03T14:42:40Z")
From here: [http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/](http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/)
> [@](#):
>
> Section 508 (508 statute html, 508 statute pdf) requires that Federal agencies’ electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities, including employees and members of the public.
>
> Section 508 establishes requirements for any electronic and information technology developed, maintained, procured, or used by the Federal government. The term “electronic and information technology” has been defined by the Access Board in regulations published December 21, 2000. Section 508 exempts national security systems from its requirements.
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:
> [@](#):
>
> PL 105-220, 1998 HR 1385
> PL 105-220, enacted on August 7, 1998, 112 Stat 936
> codified as: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794d
> WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998
> SEC. 508. ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
>
> (a) REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.–
>
> (1) ACCESSIBILITY.–
>
> (A) DEVELOPMENT, PROCUREMENT, MAINTENANCE, OR USE OF ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.–When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, each Federal department or agency, including the United States Postal Service, shall ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency, that the electronic and information technology allows, regardless of the type of medium of the technology–
>
> (i) individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities; and
>
> (ii) individuals with disabilities who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal department or agency to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by such members of the public who are not individuals with disabilities.
>
> (B) ALTERNATIVE MEANS EFFORTS.–When development, procurement, maintenance, or use of electronic and information technology that meets the standards published by the Access Board under paragraph (2) would impose an undue burden, the Federal department or agency shall provide individuals with disabilities covered by paragraph (1) with the information and data involved by an alternative means of access that allows the individual to use the information and data.
>
> (2) ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS.–
>
> (A) IN GENERAL.–Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (referred to in this section as the ‘Access Board’), after consultation with the Secretary of Education, the Administrator of General Services, the Secretary of Commerce, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and the head of any other Federal department or agency that the Access Board determines to be appropriate, including consultation on relevant research findings, and after consultation with the electronic and information technology industry and appropriate public or nonprofit agencies or organizations, including organizations representing individuals with disabilities, shall issue and publish standards setting forth–
>
> (i) for purposes of this section, a definition of electronic and information technology that is consistent with the definition of information technology specified in section 5002(3) of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401(3)); and
>
> (ii) the technical and functional performance criteria necessary to implement the requirements set forth in paragraph (1).
>
> (B) REVIEW AND AMENDMENT.–The Access Board shall periodically review and, as appropriate, amend the standards required under subparagraph (A) to reflect technological advances or changes in electronic and information technology.
>
> (3) INCORPORATION OF STANDARDS.–Not later than 6 months after the Access Board publishes the standards required under paragraph (2), the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation and each Federal department or agency shall revise the Federal procurement policies and directives under the control of the department or agency to incorporate those standards. Not later than 6 months after the Access Board revises any standards required under paragraph (2), the Council shall revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation and each appropriate Federal department or agency shall revise the procurement policies and directives, as necessary, to incorporate the revisions.
>
> (4) ACQUISITION PLANNING.–In the event that a Federal department or agency determines that compliance with the standards issued by the Access Board under paragraph (2) relating to procurement imposes an undue burden, the documentation by the department or agency supporting the procurement shall explain why compliance creates an undue burden.
>
> (5) EXEMPTION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS.–This section shall not apply to national security systems, as that term is defined in section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452).
>
> (6) CONSTRUCTION.–
>
> (A) EQUIPMENT.–In a case in which the Federal Government provides access to the public to information or data through electronic and information technology, nothing in this section shall be construed to require a Federal department or agency–
>
> (i) to make equipment owned by the Federal Government available for access and use by individuals with disabilities covered by paragraph (1) at a location other than that where the electronic and information technology is provided to the public; or
>
> (ii) to purchase equipment for access and use by individuals with disabilities covered by paragraph (1) at a location other than that where the electronic and information technology is provided to the public.
>
> (B) SOFTWARE AND PERIPHERAL DEVICES.–Except as required to comply with standards issued by the Access Board under paragraph (2), nothing in paragraph (1) requires the installation of specific accessibility-related software or the attachment of a specific accessibility-related peripheral device at a workstation of a Federal employee who is not an individual with a disability.
>
> (b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.–The Administrator of General Services and the Access Board shall provide technical assistance to individuals and Federal departments and agencies concerning the requirements of this section.
>
> © AGENCY EVALUATIONS.–Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, the head of each Federal department or agency shall evaluate the extent to which the electronic and information technology of the department or agency is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities described in subsection (a)(1), compared to the access to and use of the technology by individuals described in such subsection who are not individuals with disabilities, and submit a report containing the evaluation to the Attorney General.
>
> (d) REPORTS.–
>
> (1) INTERIM REPORT.–Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the President a report containing information on and recommendations regarding the extent to which the electronic and information technology of the Federal Government is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities described in subsection (a)(1).
>
> (2) BIENNIAL REPORTS.–Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, and every 2 years thereafter, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress a report containing information on and recommendations regarding the state of Federal department and agency compliance with the requirements of this section, including actions regarding individual complaints under subsection (f).
>
> (e) COOPERATION.–Each head of a Federal department or agency (including the Access Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the General Services Administration) shall provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines is necessary to conduct the evaluations under subsection © and prepare the reports under subsection (d).
>
> (f) ENFORCEMENT.–
>
> (1) GENERAL.–
>
> (A) COMPLAINTS.–Effective 2 years after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, any individual with a disability may file a complaint alleging that a Federal department or agency fails to comply with subsection (a)(1) in providing electronic and information technology.
>
> (B) APPLICATION.–This subsection shall apply only to electronic and information technology that is procured by a Federal department or agency not less than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998.
>
> (2) ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS.–Complaints filed under paragraph (1) shall be filed with the Federal department or agency alleged to be in noncompliance. The Federal department or agency receiving the complaint shall apply the complaint procedures established to implement section 504 for resolving allegations of discrimination in a federally conducted program or activity.
>
> (3) CIVIL ACTIONS.–The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in sections 505(a)(2) and 505(b) shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights available to any individual with a disability filing a complaint under paragraph (1).
>
> (g) APPLICATION TO OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.–This section shall not be construed to limit any right, remedy, or procedure otherwise available under any provision of Federal law (including sections 501 through 505) that provides greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities than this section.
I see nothing in there that impacts me or my business.
---
### Author:  [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/7 "2004-12-03T14:44:36Z")
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
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/8 "2004-12-03T16:34:48Z")
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](http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/is_%20yoursite_ada_compliant.htm).
There is also another discussion at [ImageWorks](http://www.imagewks.com/ada/). 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. 🙂 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.
---
### Author:  [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/9 "2004-12-03T16:46:48Z")
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.)
---
### Author:  [@Daver914](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daver914)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/10 "2004-12-04T22:36:12Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#):
>
> 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.)
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](http://www.useit.com/), 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](http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_products/software_jaws.asp)) 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](http://validator.w3.org/) 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](http://lynx.browser.org/)) 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.
---
### Author:  [@drewbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewbert)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/11 "2004-12-05T04:21:29Z")
> [@Duderdude2](#):
>
> 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.
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](http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slashdot/)
---
### Author:  [@Daver914](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daver914)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2004, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accessibility-act-for-websites-is-this-true-what-all-does-it-encompass/277874/12 "2004-12-09T08:47:23Z")
> [@drewbert](#):
>
> 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](http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slashdot/)
Well spoken. This article ([“To Hell with Bad Browsers”](http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohell/)) from [A List Apart](http://www.alistapart.com) is highly recommended reading. The days of catering to the Netscape 4 minimum are long past.