WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit

for

From: steven
Date: Feb 21, 2011 3:57AM

Interesting, Bevi,

The part that interests me, is the part that cites:
"Websites had Flash content that is not accessible to blind users."

Why mention Flash? If someone knew it was in HTML, they likely wouldn't
stipulate the technology, unless they had previous bad experience. In which
case, previous experience using inaccessible Flash didn't warrant their need
to file a previous lawsuit, yet using the Disney website made it
inaccessible!? Make me suspiscious.

It is crazy though ... images can be described to make them 'accessible',
but let us be honest, you don't come across images on the internet that
anywhere near describe what a visual person can see. Images can convey and
prompt feelings and emotions that are not in the context that an image was
taken or chosen for inclusion on a page. Yet people still wouldn't place a
lawsuit stipulating that it was a png or jpeg image, would they!? Or in that
knowing an image is on a page, possibly know that there is information that
can be gained from it that is beyond the html description ... most of the
internet would need a lawsuit then, especially being that the internet in
general is much larger than a few Disney pages.

I too am not happy with how Disney handle their website from what I read in
the press release you cited, but some visual content should be allowed to
exist that is not compromised or limited to accommodate people it is not
targeting ... I think such content has a right to co-exists on the internet
and rather than outright shun a technology like Flash like that, there needs
to be some allowance for websites like Disney's to at least alert certain
users that the content is not suitable for them, such as is done with age
verification or people of a nervous or epileptic nature.

Regards,

Steven