WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit

for

From: ckrugman
Date: Feb 25, 2011 6:54PM

The issue here regarding the inclusion specifically of Flash content in the
law suit is the issue of how the Flash content was presented on the Disney
web site. If Flash content is improperly labeled or if text is shown in
images it is not read or recognized by screen readers which causes the
accessibility problem. Working in the legal field I'm not sure what the
point of class action status for this case is as it appears that the
attorneys and plaintiffs are not requesting any individual monetary damages
and are merely requesting that corrective action be taken so other than
money possibly being awarded for attorney fees the "deep Pockets" theory
isn't being applied here.
Chuck Krugman, M.S.W., Paralegal
1237 P Street
Fresno ca 93721
559-266-9237
----- Original Message -----
From: "steven" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] INFO: Disney lawsuit


> 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
>
>
>
>
>