Blind User Sues Southwest Over Web Site, Cites ADA 1205
scubacuda writes "According to Law.com, Robert Gumson, a blind man who uses a program that converts website content into speech, is suing Southwest Airlines (with the help of Miami Beach, FL-based Access Now) for its website being incompatible with his screen-reader program. The case has been filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act under the untested legal theory that ADA provisions on the accessibility of public accommodations to the disabled apply to Internet Web sites just as they do to brick-and-mortar facilities like movie theaters and department stores. There have been previous lawsuits alleging that the ADA applies to the Internet, but all have settled without a ruling on the merits: 1999 the National Federation of the Blind sued AOL alleging its service was inaccessible to blind users (AOL agreed to make its sites compatible with screen reader technology);
over the past two years, Access Now has sued Barnes & Noble and Claire's Stores for maintaining Web sites that allegedly violated the ADA (both settled)."
i have a question (Score:4, Funny)
Legal wrangling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Legal wrangling (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't answer the question (Score:5, Funny)
"VISOR AT 3 OCLOCK."
"SARGE RUNS BEHIND THE WALL."
"VISOR SWITCHES TO RAILGUN."
"YOU SHOULD TURN LEFT AND SHOOT NOW."
"SARGE SHOOTS YOU IN THE NUTS WITH THE SHOTGUN."
"TOO LATE."
I think you can see my point.
Re:Legal wrangling (Score:2, Insightful)
A: Wherever the lawyers with the most money decide the line looks best.
Re:Legal wrangling (Score:5, Insightful)
There basically is no threshold for size if the court simply rules the ADA applies as it does in the physical realm. Virtually all commercial businesses (including non-profits) with a physical presence must follow the ADA.
If the court says the ADA applies to websites...*unless* the court stipulates traffic parameters, revenues, etc...every commercial website would then have to be ADA accessible, and worse could be just as easily sued for ADA violations as businesses with physical facilities already are now!
In short if the court rules that ADA applies to websites, unless the court is very specific to how it applies, all commercial websites regardless of size would be subject to the ruling...ouch!!! Talk about a legal nightmare!!
Ron Bennett
Re:Legal wrangling (Score:5, Informative)
That would suit me fine. Those features on a website that are most likely to break screen readers tend to be the exact same features that are the most annoying, unnecessary and browser incompatible.
Re:Legal wrangling (Score:3, Informative)
No, following W3 standards does not guarantee ADA compliance. It is still very possible to use valid HTML and having an end result of tag-soup. Yeah, alt attributes are mandatory as part of the html spec - that's an accessibility plus, but things like table summaries, cell identifiers and headers, skip to content links are not part of the mandatory HTML recommendation.
On the whole, you have a _much_ better chance of meeting ADA compliance with a standards compatible website. W3 compliance is only a milestone along the journey of accessible websites.
Re:isn't this covered under this... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a bonus, you make your site accessible via Lynx so it wouldn't just be a benefit to the blind.
I don't know who did the SW airlines site but they weren't served very well.
Re:isn't this covered under this... ? (Score:3, Informative)
There are tools for testing the accessibility of a website. One of the best I've come across is Accessibility Valet [htmlhelp.com] - a much better tool than Bobby [cast.org]
I think the answer is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Too many people think suing is the answer to everything.
This would be like me walking into Target (or any other store) and suing them because they don't sell XL-Tall shirts that will fit me.
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
I do agree with you remark about Target.
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you're XL-Tall doesn't mean you're disabled. You can still get in the store, find your way around, and purchase things at the cash register. You might not be able to find a shirt that fits you, but at least you can *find* shirts.
This guy is suing because they won't let him in the store (effectively). It's like he's walking to the front door and somebody says to him, "I'm sorry sir, but you can't come in the store."
Granted, this guy might be money-hungry. However, previous cases show that the companies that were sued (AOL in particular) settle by making their site accessbile to screen readers. In all likely hood, that is all this guy wants. That's all any blind person wants.
They just want in the store.
Who are you to compare their blindness to your big and tallness?
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:5, Informative)
The ADA doesn't allow for any monetary damages. Under the ADA, you can only sue to force compliance.
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:2, Interesting)
Has the plaintiff never heard of the telephone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting back to the plaintiff described in the article, I'd think an easier solution would be to call 1 800 555-1212, get Southwest's toll-free number from them, and then call that number. I'd think the same information is available that way as is available through their website (probably more info, in fact, such as information on what flights are on time/delayed/etc.). This has to be easier than filing yet another lawsuit. Then again, I suppose the ambulance chasers wouldn't make any money off of such a common-sense solution.
Re:Has the plaintiff never heard of the telephone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, Southwest always has plenty of incentive deals for those using the website, apparently because using the phone costs customer rep time while the website is much lower overhead.
This would seem to be a necessary condition for the suit. IANAL, but it would be if I were on the jury!
Re:Has the plaintiff never heard of the telephone? (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually tried to make some airline reservations over the phone recently. Pretty universally you'll pay more for your tickets. These days, "internet only specials" really are.
And really, it's quite easy to make your web site screen reader or braille console friendly. Use ALT="" attributes in your IMG tags. Prefer CSS over HTML formatting. As a bonus, your web site will display better on all sorts of less capable software, including lynx, WebTV, wireless Palm VIIs, and cell phones. The only reason to not do the right thing is if your web designer is clueless or lazy.
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:5, Funny)
I believe some other companies have experimented with similiar systems, which they've dubbed 'call centres'.
Who's fault, another spin (Score:5, Insightful)
This is fairly stongly worded. You might want to s/denied/not able to attain, because there is no active attempt to disallow entry to the site. The company hasn't made provisions for this special group
But, you could also spin it off the be the fault of the screen-reader. One could state that the company designing the screen-reader product did not make it work with the increasing graphic standard, perhaps by adding an advanced OCR, etc. Maybe a brail-reader based on color depth.
It's fine to say that disabled individuals are not able to use this site and are losing out. But this could set a bad precedent making all companies with graphical type sites liable. How many major sites now use flash, can the screen reader translate that? It would also suck if this set a precedent so that even my little site had at to conform to blind-compatible standards (I do, however, try to use text when possible for lynx compatibility etc)
The major point is, while much information is being presented in a textual format, the internet is moving towards towards a more visually stimulating form of presentation. People with vision impairment are going to lose out a lot from this, but not everybody will think to account for all such special cases, especially when gearing towards a more flashy and potentially better selling presentation.
Can we really expect that text-based support is going to be around forever? In a decade, will an increasingly visual medium be forced to retain non-visual support?
A lot of people will probably be tempted to say "I'm sorry, I understand your loss but why should it also be mine." It's in a way a selfish attitude, but it's also somewhat logical in current society.
Well, time to go back to text-based internet - phorm
Flash (Score:3, Insightful)
How many major sites now use flash, can the screen reader translate that?
Not only might the screen reader not be able to read this, but chances are my PDA can't either!!
Sites that use only flash, or make important data require flash to access, are not a good thing. There should always be some way that someone with the most basic browser can get to information they need. Furthermore they lock themselves away from many wireless or small device users.
Companies, think carefully before thowing away future customers! Text is simply the best way of transmitting most information that humans want to see (even text directions can be better than a map at times!!), and as such plan for a future that integrates text with diagrams, rather than throwing it away.
Re:Who's fault, another spin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
The WWW is a digitial medium. It has large purely visual aspects, as well as auditory (surely you've been to a website and had music start playing.) But the base of the web is human language, and that can be equally communicated through auditory and visual means (in the case of the web, we do have a bias towards visual, as it's encoded as text, but text to speech has largely been solved.) The HTML is not and was not designed to be a visual layout language; it was designed to hold information.
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:3, Insightful)
But you're blind, you're not going to be able to use visual (WWW) media anymore!
WWW is not a visual media, it is and information media. All HTML is about is describing how to display information. Content should be able to be seperated from code.
No, it's like he's blind and he's suing because he's unable to use a visual medium.
It's like I open a restraunt and build an 8" curb around it with no cuts. I can say it enhances the beauty of my property, but it is an unnatural barrier to some people. If I changed my restraunt to a website and called the curb Flash it is the same thing.
If he wants information about airline flights he can *pick up a phone and call*.
Sure he can't eat in my restraunt, but he can use the drive through, it's the same thing right?
SD
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:4, Insightful)
But wait, that business would go out of business real quick because a large number of people are under seven feet tall. The difference with the blind is that they make up a smaller segment of the population, and so an inaccessible business won't be effected by a small backlash from a minority group. Majority groups are always insulated from these issues, but minority groups rarely are.
I agree that suing probably isn't the answer. Instead, whatever documents that enable a business to operate should be temporarially suspended until that business comes into alignment with federal law.
F-bacher
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:3, Insightful)
You are assuming here that the webmaster is reasonable, and reacts to user's complaints. However, more often than not, this is unfortunately not the case: For example, this site [cordis.lu] has had a Javascript cover page barring access to anyone who has not a 800*600 screen (or not screen at all, for that matter...). And it has been like this for over a year, and despite repeated complaints. Ironically enough, once you have passed this obnoxious doorman (by going directly to http://www.cordis.lu/en/ [cordis.lu]), you get to a nice site which is quite accessible, and which even has alt tags on their images.
Unfortunately, such cases are not isolated. Often, polite complaints about such issues are often met with silence, or with ramblings about how 99.99% of the population use Internet Explorer anyways, or with idle promises to do better (but even after a year, no action). In fact, in the vast majority of cases, mailing the webmaster didn't bring any betterment of the site. I know even a case of a non-profit who had contracted out the design of their website to a "professional" web design firm [e-connect.lu]. The site came back full of alt-less images and obnoxious javascript. After the non-profit corrected those issues, the web design firm attempted to pressure them to revert back to the original (i.e. inaccessible) web design.
Maybe you are a good webmaster who reacts on user feedback, but unfortunately most don't :-(
For all you now, Robert Gumson probably did try to work this out amicably before going to court, but got the "use Internet Explorer, like everybody else" spiel rather than an improvement of the site.
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:3, Informative)
How hard is it to run every page through an html validator?
The company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize long term profits while staying true to the company charter. Management, when it fails to do that (and I think they are in this case) is not just serving customers poorly but their shareholders as well.
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:3, Insightful)
But being blind or deaf should, right? Okay, my sympathies to those with a disability, but the ADA is NOT right, in my opinion, when it comes to web access. The ADA doesn't specify that those with disabilities need 100% complete access to every facet of the business. How do I know this? From resturants that are wheelchair accessible, but have a section that is up a set of stairs. Now, a wheeled person cannot get up there, but they still have access to plenty of seating, so no harm done. If a blind person can't use the web site, then they should call the 800 number, and no harm done. Southwest policy (in addtion to NWA), states that those with disabilities that use the call center do NOT get charged the surcharge that you or I would. So what's the problem?
foreign hosting is the go (Score:3, Insightful)
A foreign website has no obligation to comply with US law.
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are in a wheelchair, this is a problem--and this is what the ADA addresses.
I believe this is one of those few instances where government regulation is a _good thing_.
(Besides, I'd LOVE to be able to turn off graphics and buy tickets, transfer funds, etc.)
Re:I think the answer is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
F-bacher
Interesting (Score:2, Funny)
He'll win, and before long, every commercial website will have to be made compatable with the ADA.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Informative)
But it is much more fun to make a joke than to solve the puzzle, Alex.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Now talking ATM machines are being devleoped [nfbnet.org] and installed [accessiblesociety.org].
But don't worry, the ATM machine does not read outloud your bank balance (my, wouldn't that produce some awkward situtation), as they are going to use earphones [bankofamerica.com] or simple headphones to maintain your privacy.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
There might be a valid reason for it. You don't know that the display doesn't have the capability to adapt, or even output audio based on the person's identity or a special input. Also, with a brail pad, someone could help you read the screen without having to know your password.
It does seem awfully strange unless there is more to it than meets the eye.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
San Francisco and Berkeley, I've seen dozens of ATM machines with audio jacks so that blind people can use them. If you have a cluster of 3 Wells Fargo ATMs for example, one of them will have an audio jack.
Not sure about San Francisco, but I know that Berkeley has one of the highest percentage of blind people in the US.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
ATMs and the Legally Blind (Score:5, Informative)
There are various levels of visual impairment, from no vision at all from birth, to blindness caused by accident,medical condition, or age that allows some function (light, color perception). Some can see with the aid of magnifying utilities, others must use screen readers.
With ATMs, the auditory beep can serve as feedback, and REALLY big letters/numbers can be used. For example, Citibank touch-screen ATMs have been vision-disabled friendly for almost two decades. I know this because I accidentally enabled "blind person" mode one time about 10 years ago, which blanked out the screen, and turned the different corners of the screen into input controls. What kind of input controls, I have no idea, since I can't read braille. I had to wait for the ATM to time out, before it reverted back to a GUI.
Braille on the keypad (and usually on the machine - the instructions) are common because in this country we believe in making certain accomodations people with impairments, so they can be productive members of society. I guess the rationale is that life dealt them a shitty enough hand without them having to fend for themselves when doing basic daily chores. Given that using the web is starting to fall into the level of needed service (like electricity, water, sewer, telephone), I don't blame the guy for suing to make sure that businesses don't get lazy and decide to ignore that there are people who use the web as a non-visual medium.
BTW, the Citibank ATMs have also handled multiple languages for a LONG time. I used to think it was silly too, until I saw a string of Japanese tourists one summer, using the japanese language interface...
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
It's my information, I'm not blind, I don't want the world to hear it. (Even if it's disable-able, I'd still be annoyed if a machine started our session by yapping at me)
standards (Score:5, Informative)
I have a disability... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. A disadvantage or deficiency,
3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.
Why can we not accept that there are things that we cannot do and not sue others while pretending it is someone else's fault that we have a disability.
Are these (the ADA) the people that made it so that there is Brail on Drive up ATM machines?
Only in Lake Wobiegon (sp?) is everyone above average...
Re:I have a disability... (Score:2)
No, because the presensce of the thumb does not prevent you from using it. If you had six fingers and could somehow prove it was a "disability", then you'd have a case.
Re:I have a disability... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I have a disability... (Score:5, Insightful)
After having witnessed this in use the other day, I agree with it.
Two women drive up to the ATM. The passenger gets out, walks around to the machine, starts punching buttons. Gets her money.
And then I realize she is blind. Walks around the car and gets in. They drive away. No problem.
Without Braille on the buttons, she would have had to give her card, and PIN, to the driver to do the transaction. It's not just drivers that use those machines.
Re: Sorry elitist, it's *you* who are wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's as ludicrous as saying every author writing a book needs to have it translated and published into every foreign language in common use, so those not speaking English are ensured "equal access" to it!
The fact is, many sites right now are quite browser-dependent, even if they opt not to touch any additional "plug-in" technologies such as Shockwave or RealAudio. If we didn't have Javascript, web sites would be much less useful. (As just one example, I recently found a site that calculated your speedometer error based upon changing your car's tires out with different sizes. If this had to be presented as pure HTML, I suppose we'd be reduced to looking through a huge list or table of every combination, to find relevant data for our particular car and situation. How is that a *better* way to build the site?)
Sure, some of the ".bomb'ers" are out there drawing up poor quality sites, and don't deserve a job designing web pages. That's not what this discussion is really about, however. This is a question of whether we want to let government dictate requirements for every site we build. If this becomes law, many people will take down sites completely rather than pay to do major revamping to meet ADA requirements, and then *nobody* benefits.
This is getting ridiculous! (Score:5, Funny)
er....
Oh wait, nevermind.
Human Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
This strikes me as a matter of simple human rights. Does anyone have the right to force a company to spend money on a minority, or accept customers they wouldn't otherwise accept? I don't believe they do.
If the minority (in this case, the blind) are sufficiently profitable as customers, it's likely the company will spend the time and money to cater for them. Or, perhaps, the owner(s) of the company feel that their public image would be best served by catering to the minority. Or maybe they respect the effort many blind people make to achieve their goals, and decide to assist them.
Either way, it's the choice of the company - what right has any individual or group (including the State) to force a company to accept customers they don't want?
Re:Human Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there are enough blind people or disabled people to make it profitable for most companies to accomodate them. That's why the law was put in place, as a measure of human decency that allows these people to function normally in society.
Some sites on Web accessibility (Score:5, Informative)
I think this is something that site designers should be aware of, so here are a few links to pages that discuss Web accessibility.
I hope that helps those of you who are interested.
Why this isn't a joke... (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, how many handicapped parking places does the mall need?
What people who think that this is a joke fail to consider, however, is the fact that without the ADA in place, businesses can and will discriminate against handicapped people.
Consider for a second your state's major university. We'll use the University of Texas for an example, because I'm familiar with it. Most of the buildings were constructed in the first half of the twentieth century. Most of the multi-story buildings have elevators, but not all of them. During class-time, the elevators are so full that if you want to get to class on time, you have to use the stairs. Remember that Austin is very hilly. There are stairs everywhere, even for one-story buildings.
Now lets assume that you were in a car wreck with a drunk driver and lost the use of your legs. Despite your new disability you are a smart individual who can get a job that does not require the use of your legs.
Without all those nice wheelchair ramps and wheelchair accessable elevators at the university, you are shit out of luck for actually getting to class... to say nothing of managing to cross the stage when you actually manage to earn your diploma.
We look at wheelchair ramps and other disability accomodations as commonplace. The truth is that very few businesses and schools had them before the ADA forced them to. It may be unthinkable now to descriminate against someone because he's deaf, blind, or crippled, but before the ADA went into effect, nobody thought twice about descriminating against people like that.
The ADA is not a joke.
No, but it's also a weapon (Score:3)
Things like this are why there's hostility toward the ADA and those pushing it. It's also why there's a move afoot to amend the ADA to allow businesses 90 days to bring themselves into compliance when there's a complaint, before a suit can be filed. Naturally, the plaintiff's bar thinks this is a bad idea.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No, but it's also a weapon (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. The ADA specifically excludes damages. The most someone can legally get out of an ADA suit is correction of the barrier. Nowhere in the ADA will you find that an "attorney can bill for $275". If your lawyer told you that, you need to find a new lawyer.
Re:rational discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I can tell you're working on more strawmen. Just like the first poster I responded to, which was the MAIN point I was making--it is a fact that the ADA is about access. It is not anything like a fact that the ADA would force anyone to hire a firefighter without arms. Making up arguments that don't exist is known as building strawmen and that is what's wrong here. You have a beef with a real application of the ADA that you think is wrong? Cite it. That's a real argument against it. Quit making up BS arguments against it.
As for arguments for...the point is that all people have a right to participate in society. If society is set up so that it inherently excludes some segment of people because of 1) active discrimination or 2) passive exclusion, those people have the right to try and get that exclusion corrected. And that's what the ADA is.
Is the ADA perfect? No. Does the ADA get abused? Just like any other legislation, of course--in a land of a billion lawyers, every loophole in every place it can get someone some bit of advantage gets used. But I think we're better off with it than without. I have deaf friends who I would never have met if it weren't for the access they recieve at the behest of the ADA.
Nothing in the ADA mandates the more ridiculous strawman arguments used against it, and the only thing that causes the excessive abuses that really do occur is lawyering, not regular people, and not the legislation itself.
Feel free to argue that it ought to be corrected to prevent the abuses, or to cite real abuses. But until you do, I'm going to assume you're just against it as a matter of conservative ideology rather than actual investigation (i.e. you buy the strawman arguments yourself).
Finally an excuse for using good 'ol HTML... (Score:2)
Personally, I think it's high time for companies that have public websites to strive for universal accessibility regardless of browser, etc - I really HATE seeing blurbs such as "MSIE 5+ required", etc on websites - defeats the whole idea of HTML and universal access.
While it's perhaps unrealistic for sites to work with various ancient browsers, a person with a basic browser that supports tables and other basic HTML (say HTML 3.2) should be able to access any publicly *commercial* website without hassles and plugins like flash and pdf - both of which I personally hate...webmasters who use pdf are too damn lazy to type while those who _require_ flash totally misunderstand the concept of HTML and universal accessibility.
End of rant
Ron Bennett
Miss the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it sucks to be handicapped. I would imagine blindness is one of the least desirable handicaps, but at some point, we just have to accept the fact that blind people can't effectively surf the web.
Alternative accessibility (Score:2)
Does every avenue have to be available to every person, no matter what the disability?
If you're blind, use the phone. If you're deaf, read (Web).
Try Surfing the web blind... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then come back to Slashdot, Highlight this whole discussion and listen...
wheelchair parking (Score:2)
For blind people with PCs, this means "just the facts, hold the Flash". That's what I want too, just like I want that great front row parking spot.
I wonder which site will be first to require a special permit to visit the streamlined pages.
I'm so conflicted. (Score:2)
On the other hand, if this is successful, it might make people fix many of those sites that break when javascript is turned off, and I'd personally like that quite a bit.
[1] Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea that certain public spaces must be accessable to handicapped people. In particular, I agree that handicapped people must be allowed reasonable access to all government buildings that the general public is allowed access to. What isn't so clear in my mind is that private businesses like restaurants should be required to comply with accessability laws. Personally I think it's certainly in their financial interest to do so, but I disagree with the idea of forcing them to comply by threat of law. In the same way, I don't agree with the idea that a private business like an airline should be forced to change web pages by threat of law. However, they do have what ammounts to a government granted oligopoly, so maybe that would be fair. Of course, that wouldn't be the logic used to justify it, so it would still spill over into places it wouldn't be justified. Sigh.
They also forbid browsing,linking, spidering, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
In their terms and conditions [iflyswa.com] "Southwest Airlines" also state that they forbid "deep linking", using robots to spider their site, or just using any program to get their pages.
In fact, their license seems to forbids the use of any HTTP user agent to "acquire" some of their pages. Beware, by browsing their site you are risking to get sued =).
About time (Score:5, Interesting)
It amazing me at the lack of professionalism in the web developer community for not addressesing this issue w/o legal being required to. It takes all of 15 minutes to run your site through bobby and the learning curve for meeting the W3C WAI guidelines is low. To not take the little time out of your unimpaired life to make life easier for others amazes me. Especially when 70% of it is just following good web coding practices (eg non-visual cues, alt tags, not using/requiring javascript/flash, using aural spreadsheets, etc etc). People seem to think that you can't design a site not using these items or that their site will be ugly / not satisfy the client. Both are wrong. Often you can use nice visual ques AND provide a seperate or alternate site for visually impaired people. Or just layout your site so even without visual ques, it is still usable. They aren't asking for amazing aural sites, they are asking for FUNCTIONAL aural sites. As for extra cost and time you spend designing these feature, bet that time is a hell of a lot cheaper that the multimillion dollar lawsuit you can/might get slapped with.
Trying surfing the net with lynx for an entire day, see usable it is. After thinking how bad that is, try downloading / buying your favorite aural browser for a real eye opener. Its not pretty. Now try doing that your whole life.
What are you talking about. (Score:3, Insightful)
The line is in my mind lives about where it lives right now in the physical world, and as with so many things needs only slight clarification instead of major overhaul. If your web site is for a commercial entity to be accesses by the public than you need to make any pages external customers might access in the course of doing business with you accessible.
If you're smart then you'll also make internal pages accessible as well so that when someone who does fall under the ADA guidelines gets hired, you wont have any problems. Even better, how aboput making sure your crucial internal app is not the reason the company has to turn somebody away because they will not be able to run it, who then sues you as a result (only a step away from this story).
I really can't believe all the people here pushing back on this issue. I like to think that, god forbid, something really bad should happen to me I'd still be able to work AND use the internet for leisure. A lot of people here seem to be fine with the thought that the internet as a body should cast away anyone without two hands, great reflexes, and 20/20 vision.
What about me??? (Score:2)
[Ed. I am actually a trained monkey typing this for my master. Man those bathroom monkeys don't know how good they have it. I'd like to see them have to keep up with Slashdot]
Solution: Pick up the phone (Score:2)
Why do these people feel the need to reach for their lawyers before even using common sense? What on earth is the point of voice-accessible websites for an airline when virtually ALL airlines provide 24-hour a day toll-free phone numbers where you can talk to a real person and/or use an automated system to do everything you can do on the Web?
I know that some airlines charge more for reservations not made online, but that could easily be waived for the disabled if they didn't have another option. It just seems nuts to me to try to force a company to spend millions of dollars that will be passed on to all the other customers for something that is a non-problem. The airlines already have voice information - on the original voice communicator - the PHONE! ;)
competitors (Score:2)
I'd be thinking this is a good time for one of Southwest's competitors (are there any? NB: I'm not a yank) to do a quick hack and start offering a site accessible to the blind...
It's not that hard (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple of years ago, when I was in production support, I had to respond to our VP level concerning complaints from our clients who could not use our site with the standard screen readers. This was a novel issue to me at the time and I quickly familiarized myself with screen reader technology and the W3C's accessibility quidelines [w3.org].
I suggested that it would not be a terribly huge undertaking to bring our site into a minimum level of compliance. Nope, this was deemed too costly relative to the small segment of our clientele who were disabled. Failing that, I suggested that we could simply ensure that all new development going forward implemented the accessibiltiy guidelines.
Well, two years and a new redesign later, and this still hasn't been implemented. I mean, how hard is it to include accessibility in the business requirements for the new development being farmed out?
Here's a web app [watchfire.com] that validates a URL against the W3C's accessibiltiy guidelines.Most sites will generate a ton of errors, but you'll also notice that this accessibility boils down to simple things like using *correct* html, making sure you supply text in alt and title tags, etc.
I'm not certain, but I think accessibility concerns was a reason that has caused the W3C to want to deprecate the use of framesets: screenreaders have a hell of a time trying to present essentially two different documents at the same time with any level of coherance.
This is a different problem from physical access (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider. We have plenty of trouble now with websites which can only be viewed in one browser. This is visual display, mind you, which the vast majority of browsers are built to do by default. We can't even follow the standards well enough to handle the default access method well.
Now, we add a whole new method of content rendering. We can't even impliment the main standards properly. How do we plan to ensure that an audio interface can successfully read a website, as well? Keep in mind that this is not what the web was originally designed to handle.
Then there is the problem of economnic considerations - without a simple standard in widespread use, implimenting an audio interface becomes costly. It is desirable for handicapped people to be able to participate, but statistically they represent a fraction of the viewership. There won't be money in it, so companies aren't going to be happy about it. This will inevitably show up in the final result.
Finally, and this is perhaps the most difficult point - how do we update the truly staggering amount of content already out there, much if unskillfully written and poorly maintained in the first place?
Total access is a good goal, but the technological tools just aren't robust enough yet to handle it. The law needs to take that into account - this isn't a matter of adding a ramp, lowering telephones, handicapped parking or other straightforward and easily solved problems. Audio internet is a HARD problem, converting content on the internet is even harder, and it's just not going to be happening in the short term.
In the end I think it is a good one to solve, both for the sake of those who need it and the fact that a more robust audio structure on the internet is likely to have many other benefits, as well. But that kind of work takes years and years. I don't know if the legal system will be able to figure that out.
Different technologies for different skill sets (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone's blind, it would seem only fair that southwest has the option of providing them with a dedicated, live concierge to help them with all their questions. That's why they can CALL 1-800-IFLYSWA.
The ADA is intended to make sure that people are not disenfranchised by their disability, and in this case the person is not, since they cn accomplish the same task via a means that SWA has provided for them that is compatable with their abilities. The *only* caveat I would make is that if they show they are blind, they should be able to get the double-points and internet-only fares afforded to those who frequent the site.
This particular lawsuit is as ridiculous as a person in a wheelchair suing for there not being a stair-climing inclinator when there's an elevator down the hall.
I'm all for blind readability on sites without an alternative, but if it's a service operation where you can accomplish tasks via phone, then I believe that that is a solution to the mandated requirements.
Do Porn Sites Have to Be ADA Compliant too...? (Score:3, Funny)
Porn in braille...is there such a thing?
Ron
Good god -- (Score:5, Insightful)
Before people flame the ADA and access to the web for the blind, they should remember that they too could become blind someday.
The web and HTML were created to make information _more_ accessible to people, not less. Good coding for the web is supposed to ensure that people with _any_ type of browser can get your content, not just people with IE+flash. It's not very hard to make your sight accessible for the blind -- just use well-formed HTML or the new flash accessibility extensions.
The more accessible the web is for all of us, the better we all are.
That's not all... (Score:4, Funny)
I am a blind computer user (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, let me throw in my two cents both from the perspective of a blind web surfer and a blind website designer. I actually am a user of the technology mentioned in the article, and yes, some web sites can be extreemly difficult to surf. /. itself isn't the easiest in its default state, although it is usable and making some customizations in user preferences does help a lot. From my experience on the whole, if a web site sticks rather strictly to HTML, CSS and the other standards, they're OK. Problem is, very few sites do. An even worse problem is many web designers design their sites using Dreamweaver or some other graphical tool. This seperates them from the HTML itself, and many times they don't know what's going on under the hood. The common mantra among web designers I've noticed is "if it looks right, its right." It is very frustrating running into one of these sites, and the unfortunate thing is, there are many of them.
Now that I've addressed the technical issues, let's move on to some of the other things that I've been reading about in this thread. I tend to aggree with the common conseption around here that lawsuites are way over used, and many people tend to be way too sue happy, thinking that will solve their problems. But let me ask, in a situation like this, what would you have done? I'm sure this blind person did try to contact the web designer. In fact, as blind people we are instructed to do just that right away when we encounter an inaccessible site. Problem is, very few web designers listen to us. I'm not sure if its intentional, but many of them just do not understand how we surf the web, and are probably under the impression that they have to go way out of their way to modify their pages for a screen reader. Refer to what I said above, that if a page is designed properly, nine times out of ten it will work just fine. OK, so contacting the web designer yeilds no response, so what next? Sometimes there is no other way to get a business to listen other than through its wallet. Very sad, dispicable, but true.
So, again what is he to do? Assuming this person had contacted Southwest's webmasters (which as I said they should have,) what would you do next? And don't say just not use there services. There aren't enough blind people who have access to the internet in the first place to make it make a difference, and that's just like saying that blacks should just not frequent the businesses that discriminate against them. We all have a right to make use of public services, be them brick and morder or online. And considering how relatively little modification it takes to make a web site accessible (following standards is not hard,) I think that this person may very well have a case against Southwest.
Re:I am a blind computer user (Score:4, Insightful)
Use the phone. It's great that you can post to
GNOME Accessibility Architecture gets Helen Keller (Score:3, Interesting)
Mozilla Composer Forces Some Good Practices (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone is missing the boat (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the ADA has done a great deal of good in this country. It has allowed individuals with disabilities a degree of freedom to live that has never been enjoyed in the past. However, the ADA was not brought into the world to ensure "EXACT" abilities between healthy and disabled individuals. This lawsuit makes a real mockery of the ADA and should die a quick death.
The Downfall of this Society (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyways. The clear answers to this blind persons problem is that instead of suing a company for not supporting their method of access, use your power as a member of a capitalistic society, and send a message with your money.
Find another company that supports you better, and spend your money with them.
Why does common logic like this escape so many people?
This "primarily visual" web people write about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't spent to much time on that web, myself. The web I use tends to be composed of information, usually in the form of little magnetic bits aligned in one direction or another. As I'm unable to access info directly from magnetic media, I prefer to get that info in the form of written words. But this web I use isn't inherently visual- I could get the same information aurally, just not as quickly. A SQL query on a database to retrieve a ticket price-- nothing inherently visual about that, except the purely personal aspect of me reading the results rather than hearing them.
But then until 1997 or so I did most of my web browsing in Lynx, and I'd be happy enough to be able to do so again. When I want a pure reading experience, all the "inherently visual" aspects of the web get in the way: text is quick to download, unlike all the gifs and flash bouncing advertisements. So I'm not unhappy about people pushing for ADA and accessability standards for web pages: what makes for better access for the blind also makes for an easier, faster, and less stupid-blinking-ads experience for me.
You knew it had to be coming (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need to make a site accessible quickly, or develop an accessible one from scratch, get InFocus from SSB [ssbtechnologies.com].
The ADA always annoyed me (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a disability, why is it the world's job to cater to YOU, instead of YOUR job to adapt to the world?
If someone is blind AND deaf, will they insist that every movie theater provide someone to do that Helen Keller style sign-language-inside-your-hand-so-you-can-feel-it to tell you what's happening on the screen and what's being said?
I'm all for companies voluntarily making their sites/buildings/whatever more accessible, and I believe that government sites might have a greater reason to be "required" to be accessible, but to make it mandatory is just cost-shifting the expense of "being handicapped" from the person who actually is handicapped to "lots of companies who are rich and can afford it".
Just to mention it again - Section 508 (Score:4, Informative)
Companies that want to make their sites more accessible, but don't want to build their own standards could always adopt the 508 standards and perhaps pick up some legal cover in the process.
Most of the rules are basic. It does hamstring you out of some of the more sexy things (flash is difficult) but it also keeps you true (you tend not to waste taxpayer's $$$ having to make silly flash intros).
If you have diehard GUI html designers in your shop, there are several plug-ins for Dreamweaver (and others) that force the code to be 508 compliant. Vi can write 508 code just fine.
Many COTS vendors now also have 508 compliant versions of their s/w, otherwise they can't sell to government.
To learn more, good place to start is the Section 508 [section508.gov] homepage.
blind versions of text and graphical mediums (Score:4, Insightful)
If a government service was available only on the web, then of course that web site must be accessible. But in general, a web site should only have to provide alternate means of access if they value the market they are locking out by not providing that access.
Similar to Playboy publishing a braille version (which it has). They don't have to do it, but when they want to sell to blind people, they realise that blind people probably don't get much out of their normal issue.
Why should Southwest.com be forced to provide an accessible web site? Does Southwest have to send out braille versions of all their newsletters? Sure, apply financial pressure with your business, but what in the world does the government have to do with whether or not Southwest values having blind customers able to visit their web site?
Re:Good thing (Score:2)
Re:Just wondering (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Better solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet another thing to think about (Score:3, Informative)
Truth be told, if the browser makers and page designers would get off their collective rears and support the standards right, there wouldn't even be a need for screen readers. You'd be surprised at just what HTML and CSS can do for layout; they far surpass anything tables can do, in a browser that actually knows what it's doing. And yet, if you structure your text in a sane, structural manner, an aural browser won't even need to read the screen; it can just speak the text outright. There's even a section of CSS which can be used to alter voice, position, and other aspects of sound.
Luckily, the browser makers are finally starting to get things right, even if they're four years late. Perhaps eventually the Web will recover from the bastardization of HTML that came with the advent of 4.x browsers and table-based layouts. The sooner this happens, the better for designers, users, and everyone else.
Sure hope you try this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Like a previous poster said, I look back on they days of Netscape 2 with envy. One set of html to follow and little fluff. Oh well, now I just sound like my grandfather.
Re:All Sites (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All Sites (Score:5, Informative)
"Heh, we're so web-savvy, we just dumped 160Kb of unformatted crap on our website"
Re:All Sites (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All Sites (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that making a text-only version of a website is all that's needed to make a website accessible is a myth. Its the same myth that provokes other webdesigners to construct "Netscape" and "IE" duplicates of websites - its ludicrous and involves some serious overheads in keeping multiple versions of a website in synch and up-to-date. You can bet your bottom dollar that the text version of the site is the first to be left behind and overlooked when it comes to updating.
Creating an accessible website is not difficult. The recommendations and guidelines have been available on the web since 1999 - the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [w3.org] is there for website authors to create accessible content. There's nothing in there that's remotely difficult.
I'm amazed at the level of complains from so-called "creative artists" about the Web and how they don't want to follow the standards path. Other artists in other media work within the constraints and boundaries of their chosen media and deliver work of high quality. And then they use the media to its full use.
But when it comes to websites, these so-called artists cannot understand the web beyond what they see in their browsers. They limit their imagination and scope and refuse to make their creations accessible in a public medium.
They are "so-called artists" since its clear they do not understand the breadth and depth of the World Wide Web. The ability to build accessible websites should be a mandatory skill requirement before embarking on a professional career in web design - its as important as the ability to write legibly.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of this thing called "HTML"? If you use this "HTML" stuff to design your website, it will be able to be read by blind people. If on the other hand, you use flash, or put all your textual content in
In other words, you actually have to work to make a website that can't be read by blind people. Since these companies already put so much effort only to exclude people, they might as well put in a little more to fix the problem.
Re:Wouldn't it be cheaper (Score:3, Insightful)
What's remotely difficult and expensive about doing the job of building a website correctly the first time? Accessibility is not difficult - never has been. The guidelines for accessibilty have been around almost from the inception of the World Wide Web, heck even the City of San Jose have their accessibility guidelines on their websites for quite a long stretch of time.
The whole point of accessibility is that it makes websites more accessible to more people in more locations, more situations and more devices than without accessibility. It allows your company access to a larger audience. Its not expensive or difficult to implement accessibility. Anyone with common sense can do it.
When a company gets serious and makes its website fully accessible, it benefits not only people with disabilities, but also allows their website to be accessible to mobile computing devices such as the Pocket PC and handheld computer -- this is going to be such a huge market, the pervasive web. If you can't sell accessibility to a company with this advantage, then I guess you have a website that isn't worth anything to anybody.
Re:This has to be a joke (Score:3, Informative)
[toptail.gif] [1x1.gif] [reservations_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif]
[schedules_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif] [fares_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif]
[click_n_save_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif] [travel_center_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif]
[rapid_rewards_mm0.gif] [1x1.gif] [endmenu.gif]
Re:Wheelchair Nazi's (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, ALMOST everybody happy -- along came some disabled guy with a chip on his shoulder, who got some disabilities advocacy group to sue the city to force ALL the units to be wheelchair accessable. And sure enough, the court ruled that IF port-a-potties were provided for ANYONE, they must ALL have handicapped accessability.
Well, there were several problems with that: 1) Standard units take up 4 square feet of sidewalk space. Handicapped units take up some 100 square feet of sidewalk space (ie. pretty much the whole corner). 2) Standard units cost $500 dollars apiece. Handicapped units cost $25,000 apiece. Making ALL the units handicapped-accessable was WAY over the city's budget for the project. 3) No one can sleep in a standard unit. The existing handicapped units were already being abused as bum hotels and crack houses.
The city examined the verdict in light of the drawbacks enumerated above, and said to hell with it. ALL of the units were removed, and now ALL the homeless, disabled or otherwise, are back to shitting in alleys and peeing in doorways. All because one guy didn't want to wheel himself 5 extra blocks to use a handicapped unit.
Re:How about blind pr0n users (Score:3, Insightful)
Long ago, a science fiction writer (I don't remember who, unfortunately) wrote a short story about a society which tried to equalize everything for everybody. If you were too fast, you wore weights to slow you down. If you were too smart, you wore a device that randomly made a loud noise and startled you out of your train of thought.
sounds like "harrison bergeron" by kurt vonnegut. an excellent story, made into a tv-movie in 1995, also very good:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0113264