WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit

for

From: ckrugman
Date: Mar 5, 2011 9:39PM

The issue seems to be challenging the inaccessibility of the textual content
as it may have been shown in textual images and not properly labeled. Not
having visited the web site I personally don't know the specifics. Obviously
all visual content is not going to be made accessible for screen reader
users. however, when alternatives are not provided is when potential trouble
arises for a web site. According to the press release there were problems
with the text as well as the auditory background not being able to be turned
off as it was competing with the screen reader. Flash content itself is not
on trial here it is the way the content was handled by the developers. Text
content can be labeled appropriately in Flash so that people using later
versions of screen readers can access it. When corners are cut and when
mistakes are not corrected when brought to the attention of a company is
where potential trouble arises under any violation of the ADA and other
legislation. This is an evolving area and while the NFB V. Target suit laid
some foundation it didn't set any real precedent as it was settled out of
court.
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: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] INFO: Disney lawsuit


> Do you know if it is legal to allow any content to not be accessible? Not
> that I am encouraging content to not be accessible, but alot of nature is
> simply not accessible and everything man does is in nature's image. I am
> just wondering if websites in particular, can be undoubtedly and
> enforceably
> accessible, to be challenged by law?
>
> For example, Disney content is largely visual. Flash technology is still
> often best suited for displaying visual content without creative
> limitation.
> Flash content (I love Flash by the way) as an entertainment media is
> largely
> built with visual priority in mind, thus I think most web users who have
> encountered Flash entertainment content will have a general expectation
> having used it a few times. Thus I am not sure exactly what the problem is
> with Disney's content in this instance, other than to say that "in an
> ideal
> world" (which also happens to be the fashionable goal of HTML5 right now)
> it
> could be done another way. And if it was, it likely wouldn't look like it
> does ... and being that any person's interest in Disney is the result of
> Disney having been allowed to create work as they deemed most likely to
> capture our interest in the first place (no compromise), I can't see a
> reason to do compromise in this instance, without expecting their product
> to
> 'possibly' be portrayed in a less appealing light than the people that
> would
> otherwise be drawn to their products and website would be, in the first
> place.
>
> My opinion is also hypothetical, so I find it really interesting to
> genuinely feel comfortable between this black and white issue of
> accessible
> web content, as a designer and developer. Is taking Disney to court
> because
> a Flash website is 'still' largely made in an inaccessible way? Whatever
> the
> correct answer, can we really agree on what content will constitute as
> content that needs to be accessible to all? afterall, our society doesn't
> add lifts to all neighbourhood trees in the off chance that one child in a
> wheelchair might want to climb the trees like all the other kids in the
> neighbourhood. I know this is a rather flimsy analogy, but I genuinely
> think
> web accessibility has some serious hurdles being that it has been grown in
> an often inaccessible world.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven
>
>
>