Does the Americans With Disabilities Act actually cover web pages? I looked at the ADA web page (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm) and could find no indication of this (but I certainly could have missed it).
If so, which web sites? Certainly not every page put up, like the ones on Geocities or the minimal web space that comes with an internet account?
I think that is what this lawsuit will find out. The limits of major acts and the Constitution are tested through lawsuits that people bring. There are standards to make websites available to those with disabilities but nobody really knows what disabilities have to be covered and who has to comply if you stretch things to the limits. Technology tends to move faster than the law in many cases. Lawsuits define the limits.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. There is a decent chance the lawsuit won’t go anywhere and Target as well as all major retailers will be in the clear about providing web access to the blind. It would be really hard to dictate who and what specically has to be made avialable to the blind on the web and the effects could be far-reaching.
The US Department of Justice has ruled that it does:
[
There is still some wiggle room there though. A successful suit could have a major impact on all larger businesses because building every web site to multiple standards and very broad accessibility may be expensive and time-consuming. The best hope would be technology that can read any web page well enough to meet the standards,
So did retrofiitting government and other public buildings and businesses to meet accessibility standards. I don’t see why this is fundamentally different. This isn’t GD, so I won’t get on my soapbox; suffice it to say I hope the suit wins. Why shouldn’t places like Target design accessible web pages?
Accessible Web design is mandated, and really isn’t all that hard to do. In HTML, you can create an accessible web page with about an extra three minutes of work, and most of the elements are just plain good web design.
They include:
It’s also believed that “separate by equal” is OK, and I’ve had advice by advocates for the ADA that all you need is a one-pixel by one-pixel image with a description of “Click here for text-only” as the first image on the page. Those using the screen readers can go immediately to a user friendly page.
It’s also ridiculously easy to test. There’s software that will do it for you, or you can just look at your page with a graphics only browser like winlynx.
I’ve known about ADA compliance issues for at least five years, and have no problem creating pages that work. It also has next to no effect on design. See these pages:
(The State University of NY system has required accessible web design for several years now.)
Target are fools for not complying and they’re paying the price.
I don’t have an opinion one way or the other. I don’t have a website to redesign. I was merely outlining the implications.
There are limits though. Every business cannot accommodate every conceivable disability. I am just saying that there aren’t any firm rules until the courts work them out. In many instances, it is hard for businesses to know exactly what they are supposed to do until lawsuits are brought and won because acts like the Americans with Disabilities Act are written in extremely broad language that require courts to define the limits. I doubt that Target purposely ignored blind people using the web. It isn’t as if most other big businesses provide for that and it isn’t obvious for the best way to accomodate that even if it was a concern.
Surely the ADA cannot apply to every web page in the US? If I make a page to show some pictures of pets, do I have make it comply? How about if I’m selling a dog? Selling several dogs? Selling dogs for a living?
Where’s the line, if there’s a line at all?
Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act (of 1973) covers web pages, but only federal web pages, and those web sites were federal tax dollars are involved. Be aware that some states may require Section 508 compliance for state tax supported web sites as well.
What many people are unaware is that Section 508 applies to all electronic communication within the federal government, and not just federal web sites. For example, if you contact a federal agency via email and that employee sends you an email attachment, that attachment must also be 508-compliant, even if it never was published on a web site. There are exceptions, of course, but those are often limited to being required to provide an alternative means for that data if the electronic communications cannot be made 508-compliant. So when you access a Powerpoint presentation produced by the feds, there must also be an alternative access to that same content because Powerpoint presentations cannot be made 508-compliant.
The ADA is untested ground with respect to web pages, however, the New York Attorney General issued an opinion in 2004 that all web sites (public and private) originating in that state are subject to accessibility requirements under ADA. The AG’s opinion mentions Ramada.com and Priceline.com which were forced to make their private, commercial web sites accessible under New York law.
Probably when you cross the line to commercial speech: i.e. when you start selling. I don’t know for sure.
But as RealityChuck pointed out, this is rediculously simple to do, almost automatic. Even better, it gets you unexpected benefits, such as usability by people whose “disability” is that they’re using a Mac, Linux, a text-only browser, a cell phone, a PDA…
Most web sites that aren’t accessable are inaccessable through stupidity or wanting “flash crap,” not because there’s anything hard about doing it right. Web developers who write graphics-heavy, Flash, ActiveX, and Internet Explorer only sites are generally doing it because of inexperience or laziness.
Ease of compliance is not the issue, the issue is at what point does a person fiddling around with HTML have to worry about this stuff.
Well, if he wants to write good code, he should be concerned about it. If he doesn’t mind a sloppy and amateurish web page, then I guess he can ignore it.
Timewinder is right: following ADA compliance gives additional benefits and means that more people can read your page. I would think that’s something a web designer wants: the largest possible number of people seeing the page.
Legally, you probably don’t have to do it with your own personal page, but why shouldn’t you try to make the most of your web page by making it compliant?
It makes perfect sense to be compliant; I’m just asking who is legally obligated to be compliant.
Here’s who’s covered under the Rehab. Act of 1973
"The nondiscrimination requirements of the law apply to employers and organizations that receive financial assistance from any Federal department or agency, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). "
Here’s who’s covered under the ADA’s public accommodations provision
A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors’ offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA’s title III requirements for public accommodations.
Oodles of ADA info here, including compliant design guidelines -
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm
Making web pages 504 compliant was at least for a time sort of a mini-Y2K compliance project.
And the major text-only browser is . . . Google!
Google (and the other search engines) browse the web and update their databases using only the text on web pages.
So any fool of a business that builds a non-compliant website will be under-represented in Google & similar search engines. And that’s pretty much the kiss of death for a commercial website.
Which is why most commercial websites (especially the successful ones) are quite ADA-compliant.