E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)

From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, Feb 18 2011 10:45AM
Subject: INFO: Disney lawsuit
No previous message | Next message →

Class action complaint was filed last September against two Disney companies
by visually impaired patrons.

This week the plaintiffs filed their certification brief, which moves the
lawsuit one step forward.



Main problems cited:



- Websites had Flash content that is not accessible to blind users.

- Websites had video and audio that could not be turned off by blind users,
which therefore drowned out their screen readers.



Read the complete press release here:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/02/prweb5073794.htm



I wonder how well the Disney websites hold up for other disabled visitors.



Interesting denial from Disney (quoted from the press release):

"Disney denies that it owes any special obligation to blind persons as a
group, and asserts that decisions regarding accommodations for its visually
impaired patrons must be made one guest at a time and not as a matter of
company policy. The complaint also alleges that Disney denies an ability to
estimate the number of visually impaired or blind guests who visit its
resorts or its websites."



Huh. Disney World, Disney Land, Disney cruise ships, Disney resorts, and all
the other Disney theme-park-related ventures don't think they have a
worthwhile interest in blind people. Very interesting to know!



- Bevi Chagnon



: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :

Bevi Chagnon | PubCom | <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = |
301-585-8805

Government publishing specialists, trainers, consultants | print, press,
web, Acrobat PDF & 508

Class Calendar: www.pubcom.com/classes

Online blog: <http://www.pubcom.com/newsletter>; www.pubcom.com/newsletter

From: steven
Date: Mon, Feb 21 2011 3:57AM
Subject: Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit
← Previous message | Next message →

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

From: ckrugman
Date: Fri, Feb 25 2011 6:54PM
Subject: Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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
>
>
>
>
>

From: steven
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 9:48AM
Subject: Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit
← Previous message | Next message →

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

From: Steve Green
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 1:27PM
Subject: Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit
← Previous message | Next message →

The UK has possibly the toughest laws in the world with regard to
accessibility, and it is certainly legal for some content not to be
accessible here. The nature of our law is that even if some content is
deemed to be illegal, it is only illegal with respect to the person who
brought the legal action. It is still legal with respect to everyone else.
That is about to change, as our new Equality Act has provision for class
actions (which the DDA did not), but no one has brought such an action yet.

Both the DDA and the Equality Act have the concept of 'reasonableness', so a
court may well decide that it is not reasonable to expect certain types of
content to be accessible. They may also decide that it is not reasonable
(usually on grounds of cost) to expect a content publisher to make certain
content accessible even if it is technically possible. Many factors are
taken into account, particularly the resources available (usually money) to
the content publisher to make the content accessible.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd

From: Terri Youngblood Savage - Accessible Systems
Date: Sat, Feb 26 2011 5:42PM
Subject: Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit
← Previous message | Next message →

Interesting discussion..... this blog will add value to the discussion
thread: http://www.iheni.com/dickensian-disney/

From: ckrugman
Date: Sat, Mar 05 2011 9:39PM
Subject: Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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
>
>
>

From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Sat, Mar 05 2011 10:18PM
Subject: Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit
← Previous message | Next message →

<< the NFB V. Target suit laid some foundation it didn't set any real
precedent as it was settled out of court. >>

Thank you for your comments, Chuck.
I agree. The settlement benefitted only the plaintiffs. Without a court
decision, there are few "teeth" to hold others outside of government to the
standards here in the US.
Well, at least until the Dept. of Justice's standards are in place, that is.

- Bevi Chagnon
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
Bevi Chagnon | PubCom | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | 301-585-8805
Government publishing specialists, trainers, consultants | print, press,
web, Acrobat PDF & 508
Class Calendar: www.pubcom.com/classes
Online blog: www.pubcom.com/newsletter
It's our 30th year! 1981-2011

From: steven
Date: Mon, Mar 07 2011 2:33AM
Subject: Re: INFO: Disney lawsuit
← Previous message | No next message

Very interesting follow-up about the Disney lawsuit, Steve.

I hope to read over it carefully as soon as I catch up with the pile of work
I have at my desk after being off sick for the past week.

Regards,

Steven