E-mail List Archives
Thread: ecision from the Appeals court was Re: [webwatch] Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web, court says
Number of posts in this thread: 46 (In chronological order)
From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 9:44AM
Subject: No decision from the Appeals court was Re: [webwatch] Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web, court says
No previous message | Next message →
This case, from a Florida District Court alleged that Southwest.com, being
inaccessible, violated the ADA - because they held, Southwest.com was a
place of public accommodation and therefore fell under Title III of the ADA.
This decision of the Appellate Court offers nothing new. On appeal, the case
was made that Southwest.com was a "travel service" and thus subject to ADA.
The appellate brief and oral arguments didn't even allege that Southwest.com
is a place of public accommodation. The Appellate court ruled on neither
issue. They didn't rule on the travel service idea because that was not
raised in the District Court. They didn't rule on the public accommodation
issue because the appeal didn't raise that issue. They dismissed the appeal
on procedural grounds and did not consider the question of "public
accommodation."
The judge did recognize the importance of the issues: "In declining to
evaluate the merits of this case, we are in no way unmindful that the legal
questions raised are significant," wrote Judge Stanley Marcus.
News article (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5384087.html)
Opinion (PDF) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216163p.pdf)
Jim
Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
512-306-0931
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 10:23AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
> They didn't rule on the public accommodation
> issue because the appeal didn't raise that issue. They dismissed the appeal
> on procedural grounds and did not consider the question of "public
> accommodation."
....and how much are these lawyers making?
The only thing more disappointing than the fact that the lawyers messed
up is the way in which the media is misinterpreting it. I don't read
"Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web..."
(http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5384087.html) anywhere in the ruling.
The fact that the case was dismissed on procedural grounds does not
mean that it did not have merit.
Jared Smith
WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind)
Center for Persons with Disabilities
Utah State University
From: Sandy Clark
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 11:16AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
I've actually gotten some emails from people in my community (ColdFusion)
asking me if this means they shouldn't worry about making their commercial
sites accessible. They way the media that is covering this is actually
miscovering up is leading to a lot of misinformation.
Sandy Clark
http://www.shayna.com
CF Pretty Accessible at http://www.shayna.com/blog
Now offering 4 days Hands on CSS training October 11-14th. Rockville, MD.
For more information go to:
http://www.teratech.com/training/oc_classes.cfm#css
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 11:19AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
The headline writers don't appear to have actually read the legal brief or understood what the Court said in this case. This was a matter of the plaintiff's attorneys screwing up their arguments and procedural issues rather than the merits of the case being weighed and ruled against. The Court made this clear in their brief. CNET News should really be ashamed for such shoddy and misleading headlines. It's really a shame because it is a well written and carefully considered decision by the Appellate Court. They clearly thought about the impact of the case and did not dismiss this out of hand, they looked many reasons arguments and precedents pertaining to their considering the new arguments being presented by the plaintiffs. I think they did the right thing.
As to the legal standing of web sites with respect to the ADA, I think we should be careful what we wish for. It's nice to be able to browbeat business people into making accessible web sites in the short term, but do we really want the buffoons in Congress legislating what good markup is? The last thing I want is Orrin Hatch or Debbie Stabenow telling me how to build a web site. That's the fastest way I can think of to make all web sites worse. They won't bother to get input from people like us who care and understand the technological issues and need for flexibility and innovation in the future. They'll listen to whatever lobbyist or mega-corporation has their ear.
We are probably better off in the long run if we argue that the ADA doesn't apply to web sites and focus our efforts on educating web designers and stakeholders in web sites on the importance of good accessibility and usability practices. We've made huge progress recently in getting the word out to designers and getting trend setters like ESPN and Wired to move toward standards based design and thinking about accessibility, and I think that's how we should keep moving forward. The courts and Congress are not the right place to decide how web sites should be built.
-Kevin Hall
www.infinitewebdesign.com
From: Glenda
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 11:40AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared,
Is there any way WEBAIM could do a press release countering the media's
current interpretation of the decision? Sounds like the media could undo
all the hard work we've all been doing. And, mention that web accessibility
is not only for those using screen readers. Seems like other disabilities
get ignored in these court cases.
Cheers,
Glenda
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 11:44AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
If people are wondering about whether or not to make their web sites
accessible perhaps having them read what the Attorney General of NY did
about this issue.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/aug/aug19a_04.html
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: Susan R. Grossman
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 12:08PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
>
>
>
>We are probably better off in the long run if we argue that the ADA doesn't apply to web sites and focus our efforts on educating web designers and stakeholders in web sites on the importance of good accessibility and usability practices. We've made huge progress recently in getting the word out to designers and getting trend setters like ESPN and Wired to move toward standards based design and thinking about accessibility, and I think that's how we should keep moving forward. The courts and Congress are not the right place to decide how web sites should be built.
>
>
>
Your comments are a little disturbing. I don't beleive that legislation
would actual dictate how you do your mark-up, it would simply have end
rules like "must be accessible to screen readers over a certain
version/version date", not laws telling you that you must use an alt tag
between 15 & 40 chars containing no special characters and declaring the
authors name placed after a mandatory height tag with exactly one space
between (no non breaking spaces allowed) - or any such nonsense..
Getting the word out and promoting accessibility will never be enough
for those who beleive that aceessibility equals more money, and without
being part of ADA they'll be easy to continue to ignore.
Accessibilities standards aren't new... do you see everyone adopting
them based on our "grass roots" movement? I can't quite imagine a
corporate presentation to management brandishing a Wired article to
support their proposal for accessibility on their sites.
There are also many people out there who don't think disabled people are
"normal" and so shouldn't be considered in their demographics. That's
what ADA is trying to change, and I strongly feel we should be part of ADA .
So much for my rant.
Susan
From: Schuffman, Jan (General Services - ADA)
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 12:18PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
The one thing I expect a lot of people might try to hang their hats on,
to say they don't have to build their sites to accessibility standards,
is this one line near the very end (page 24) of the opinion cited on
Caselaw by Jim Thatcher:
" Furthermore, even the purely legal question of the application of
Title III to
Internet web sites is far from "beyond any doubt." "
Granted, that's out of context, but that's how some people will probably
prefer to use it.
Jan
From: Darel Benysh
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 12:39PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Return Receipt
Your Re: [WebAIM] No decision from the Appeals court
document:
was Darel Benysh/Rochester/IBM
received
by:
at: 09/28/2004 01:43:04 PM
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 1:01PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, but my broader point is that I place little trust in the abilities of the U.S. Congress to understand or correctly legislate technology issues such as web accessibility. If they do decide to try to spell out in any concrete way what web accessibility should and should not entail it will likely stifle further innovation in hardware and software that could be of use to those with disabilities but may conflict with poorly written legal language. Additionally, I think that most of the issues relate more to educating designers on how to code to web standards and keep accessibility and usability in mind. There is a growing body of anecdotal and quantitative evidence that designing with web standards reduces costs in initial development and maintenance of web sites. We can keep working to create better moral and business cases for our side to make people want to embrace accessibility, to want to do more than the minimum required by law.
Based on Congress' recent laws like the DMCA and the Induce Act do you really think that our Senators and Representatives would do a good job of guiding web development? Or would they create a poorly written, ill advised piece of legislation that is useful only for scaring people and creating junk lawsuits. I tend to think that the government has little to no place in software and web development.
And in response to cynicism on the 'grass roots' movement, I see Chevy.com moving to XHTML Strict, ESPN.com, Wired.com, PGA.com and many more all designing pages with accessibility and web standards in mind. These are not small time fringe sites. Heck, even Microsoft recently made a nice redesign of their homepage that, while not great, was a big step forward. The last two years have seen a huge upswing in major web sites that are usable, accessible and built with web standards in mind. It can take time for people to see the light, but that doesn't mean that taking them to court is the right way to enlighten them.
I actually agree with the spirit of the ADA, particularly as it has made many public spaces open to those with disabilities of all kinds. I clearly think accessibility is important or I wouldn't subscribe to this list. We can all do our part to educate the public and corporate decision makers about the need for accessibility. Most people I have encountered are merely ignorant when dealing with the challenges faced by those with disabilities. We often don't encounter those with serious disabilities in our daily lives. A bit of explanation about how a little effort by web designers can make a huge difference in many lives will win over most decision makers. They are not against accessibility, they simply don't know that they should be for it.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
From: Sandy Clark
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 1:37PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
I have just two words to say to your concerns about Congress legislating web
accessibility
Section 508
Sandy Clark
http://www.shayna.com
CF Pretty Accessible at http://www.shayna.com/blog
Now offering 4 days Hands on CSS training October 11-14th. Rockville, MD.
For more information go to:
http://www.teratech.com/training/oc_classes.cfm#css
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 1:58PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Section 508 has a very limited scope and I'd say it should stay that way. If you don't do business with the government you are not included. I do think that it is great that the U.S. government requires all governmental sites to be accessible, though interestingly they are not required to be usable. Note the recent posting on webaim.org about the IRS site. Accessible, but not necessarily usable.
Requiring the government to make its websites accessible is a reasonable stance (though it could be internal policy as easily as law). Disabled taxpayers support those sites, in a sense they 'own' about 1/290,000,000th of the site ('that byte on the bottom left is yours'). And particularly for sites such as IRS.gov they should absolutely be able to access and use the sites they paid for.
Privately owned sites belonging to individuals and businesses should not be required, though they should be encouraged, to meet the requirements of Section 508 or the WCAG. Those that do business with the government are the exception, and the above argument about taxpayer funds applies once again. If you take tax money it is fair to have strings attached.
I didn't mean to go off on a long diatribe here, I just don't like the results when the government places legislative restrictions on how we build or use web sites or software. I prefer voluntary compliance with internationally tested standards and lots of educational efforts on our part. It can be a slow and frustrating process, but I think that the end result is better when people are convinced to do the right thing rather than forced to.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
From: Steve_Roberts
Date: Tue, Sep 28 2004 4:48PM
Subject: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Return Receipt
Your [WebAIM] No decision from the Appeals court
document
:
was Steve Roberts/TI/National Australia Bank/AU
received
by:
at: 29/09/2004 08:50:30
From: michael.brockington
Date: Wed, Sep 29 2004 3:15AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Wed, Sep 29 2004 8:59AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
These are the kinds of thoughts we heard during the debate and after the
signing of the original ADA, the law you can blame for curb cuts, from which
we all benefit. In the case of ADA, technologists, architects, advocates and
others met and drafted the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) which have
just recently been updated 10 years later. These work; the interested
parties join in to make the world a better place for everybody.
The same is true for the effect of Section 508. The Accessibility Standards
(based largely on WCAG 1.0) from the Access Board serve as guidance for
building an accessible web. Though 508 only applies to federal agency
purchases, some companies, like IBM where I worked for 37 years, and where I
led the accessibility effort, decide to accept accessibility as a standard
for their IT development, rather than a separate plan for federal agencies.
Sure they have to keep working on it - just as on usability and security.
But the products change and everybody is better off. In no way is IBM alone
in that view. I am sure the force of law is what brought about the change.
And it isn't a question of "if the US passes such an act" - we have one, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), - 14 years old and a piece of
legislation that we can all be proud of - especially on this list. The only
question arising in this thread is whether or not the ADA applies to the
Web. Some think it does, including the Attorney General of New York, and the
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. I do too. One judge in a
District Court in Florida, thinks not. That's the score. Stay tuned.
Jim
Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
512-306-0931
From: michael.brockington
Date: Wed, Sep 29 2004 9:34AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Jim,
I notice that you make no mention of the EU in this? Americans are in a
minority on this planet - and these days a minority on the Web. If the ADA
applies to Websites, which ones does it apply to?
You state here that the ADA already applies, but this is just as ill-informed
as the general media comment - the latest court case declined to make that
decision. The earlier New York cases that you refer to were (I believe)
settled out of court, so do not come close to confirming your contention that
computer code is analagous to bricks-and-mortar.
Your comments about IBM seem fairly obviously wrong to me. When any company
is forced to change its procedures for one part of its business, it is
perfectly normal for it to standardise those procedures across the company,
unless there is a pressing reason to do otherwise - as you said yourself,
this has nothing to do with the ADA which after fourteen years has yet to be
used.
PS what are 'curb cuts'?
Mike
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.btsyntegra.com
********************************************************************
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Wed, Sep 29 2004 9:55AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Mike,
Jim's point about curb cuts being a benefit to all seems right on to me. They are the little ramps that are cut into sidewalks from the street that allow people in wheelchairs and other who have trouble with the step at the curb to get on and off of the sidewalk (also handy for shopping carts and bikes). However, it also highlights one of the fundamental differences between applying the ADA to a local place of business and to a web site that is available globally - that is that the U.S. government really has no control over the content of the web. Neither does any other government except through the use of national firewalls and similar measures as seen in Iran and Vietnam. The sidewalk is clearly under on U.S. soil, but is a web site that is accessed in the U.S. but created and hosted elsewhere? It's not clear even to those of us with a good understanding of the nature of the web, much less to a politician who can't find the power button on their computer.
You are also right that the ADA does not apply to private sector companies or individuals operating web sites. The recent NY settlement and the Southwest.com appeal do not set any legal precedent otherwise. Section 508 is part of the ADA, the question now is whether other sections, traditionally interpreted to refer only to brick-and-mortar locations, also apply to web sites in the private sector. I opt for no on that one though I can understand how others like Jim might argue that we need that to make progress.
I took Jim's comments on IBM to mean that IBM had embraced the federal standard as their own and may not have taken to accessibility as company policy as easily without the federal guidelines in place. I think this supports my earlier point that the government can set an example and provide guidelines and encouragement rather than the threat of lawsuits. It appears to have worked with IBM.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
P.S. Yahoo can be added to the list that is now designing with Web Standards in mind. See http://www.yahoo.com/beta
From: michael.brockington
Date: Wed, Sep 29 2004 10:29AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Wed, Sep 29 2004 12:37PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
> I've never seen that spelling of Kerb before, I thought that this was some clever web design technique that I didn't know about - not an > irrelevance from the physical world.
Well, you know what they say - America and England are two countries separated by a common ocean... but I don't think it was really off topic in that understanding how the ADA has made a positive impact in some areas may lead some people to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to broadly apply it or similar legislation to web sites. The web does not operate in a vacuum, we should recognize that at some point it interfaces with the real world and understand that there can be some confusion and blurring of ideas where that intersection occurs. In this case the fact that the ADA has led to some real improvements in how buildings and public spaces are created is misleading some into thinking it would have the same positive effect on web sites. (Note that the ADA is not without its detractors for some unintended negative effects in the offline world, but that really is getting off topic)
I think you've nailed the problem with the example of your web site hosted in the U.S., it's simply too hard to pin things down online based on offline geography. I don't think any of us want to see extradition cases or international lawsuits over alt tags or captioning. Best to keep the courts and politicians out of it and leave this to free people choosing to do the right thing. Our job is to convince everyone to do the right thing and to want to build accessible web sites.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
Also, Americans think anyone with a British accent is quite sophisticated, that's why our actors adopt fake accents to sound more cultured. We're total suckers that way.
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Wed, Sep 29 2004 12:51PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Jim Thatcher wrote:
> The only
> question arising in this thread is whether or not the ADA
> applies to the
> Web. Some think it does, including the Attorney General of
> New York, and the
> Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. I do too.
> One judge in a
> District Court in Florida, thinks not. That's the score. Stay tuned.
>
> Jim
>
Hmmm...
Jim, seeing as I am in Canada (a sovereign nation with it's own laws),
things aren't quite as simple as that - the web of today is a lot more than
ARPANET was. Just look at how often you get spam offering to ship
prescription meds from my country to yours .
While the US Section 508 and ADA are good starting points for web
accessibility (perhaps critical in the USA), Canadian Federal government web
sites are mandated to achieve WCAG P1 and P2 (whether or not they succeed is
a whole other story...).
So while it is important that governments and law-makers understand and
advocate the issues, one law in one country does not the accessible web
make. I look forward to a day when the W3C (an international body) can
categorically provide a measurable Standard or set of standards that can be
agreed to internationally, and when all developers understand that it is not
only the legal thing to do but also *right* thing to do. (And I hope to
live to see that day!)
Cheers!
JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Wed, Sep 29 2004 4:17PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
I admit to being a bit parochial in the way I said what I said, but I was
commenting on a decision of a United States Appellate Court.
Jim
Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
512-306-0931
From: michael.brockington
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 3:18AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 7:22AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
You're right, that was really vague and broad sounding... happens sometimes when I write quickly...
If we can prevent the nightmare that is copyright law in the U.S. (see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Honorable Senator from Disney, and the new Induce Act) from spreading to web design and accessibility I would be very happy. The similarity to web accessibility lies in the fact that there are substantive qualitative differences between copyright in print and digital media - just as there are fundamental differences between online and offline accessibility. Failing to recognize and embrace the fundamentally different nature of digital products has lead to serious errors in reasoning and faulty policy decisions in both areas.
Software patents are another area where an offline concept is being regularly misapplied to digital products often to the detriment of the public good. One thing that may be worth re-reading for discussions like this one is the U.S. Supreme Court's Sony Betamax decision from 1983. It is extremely well written and does a good job of framing discussion of modern technological issues. See savebetamax.org for more information (it's focused on the Induce Act but has lots of good material and a link to the decision).
Part of the problem is that we try to talk through analogies, which leads to people thinking of two disparate concepts as more similar than they really are. Web designers have had discussions recently about letting go of the old concepts of absolute control of layouts and the user experience from print design and embracing the true, flexible nature of web sites. When dealing with web accessibility I think we have to do some letting go of rigid offline accessibility concepts and consider flexibility and innovation in our designs in order to achieve the real accessibility potential of the web. These are really two largely distinct areas that are brought together under the large umbrella of accessibility.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 7:33AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
And yeah, I just saw the irony in using analogies to point out the problem with using analogies...
-Kevin Hall
From: michael.brockington
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 8:35AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 8:52AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
I by no means meant to indicate that U.S. is the only country capable of screwing up copyright or accessibility laws. I am sure that many other countries are fully capable of drafting laws as idiotic or more so than my country's own. While we always strive to be world leaders in a given area sometimes we are simply outdone and I for one am not afraid to face it when that happens.
The UK web accessibility policy seems to tie itself to the W3C Accessibility Guidelines (correct me if I'm wrong on that please)... I wonder if court cases and decisions could be challenged based on differences between versions of the standard? The working draft of the WCAG Version 2 is rather different from Version 1 in its format and language. It seems interesting to me that the W3C could potentially change the outcome of court cases by revising their standard overnight. What do the rest of you think of this possibility? Is it an issue? A good or bad thing? It seems that it alleviates lawmakers of the responsibility of revising the law as time passes, they can just point to the current version of the standard... but does that leave everyone open to trouble on the day the new version of the standard is released before anyone can catch up (there is often a long lag time before new standards are accepted and widely used). It seems odd to tie the law to something so completely out of a country's control.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
From: Raena Armitage
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 8:59AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
On 01/10/2004, at 12:38 AM, michael.brockington wrote:
> Clearly the UK government doesn't think that they could apply this Act
> to web
> sites, as there is also recent legislation which states that all
> Governmental
> sites must reach WAI AA standard. This does not apply to commercial
> sites, or
> hobby sites of course. Yet.
The Act makes specific reference to "access to and use of means of
communication", and "access to and use of information services". It is
extremely similar to the Australian law, too.
Given the outcome of the Maguire vs SOCOG case I suspect it would be
highly unlikely that a UK court would find any different with the UK's
Act.
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 9:02AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
> If we can prevent the nightmare that is copyright law in the U.S.
> (see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Honorable Senator from
> Disney, and the new Induce Act) from spreading to web design
No need to worry about that. Our new oppressive copyright legislation is
based on heavy-handed corporate influence. They are interested in Money. I
doubt they have much interest in actually catering to consumers, which is
what accessibility is all about. ;o)
BTW, do call your senators regarding the Induce Act. A very frightening
piece of legislature. And if you live in UT, for the love of mankind, please
help get rid of Orrin Hatch.
Regarding this whole gov-regulated accessibility, I'm not sure if the debate
is really going to get us anywhere. I'd suggest that we just proselytize the
benefits (in the cotext of 'good business') so it spreads prior to the
government getting their hands into the batter too deep.
-Darrel
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 9:15AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
You're right that corporate interests will not lobby for web accessibility. However, it's very easy for a politician to sponsor an ill advised accessibility bill that allows them to stump on their defense of disabled citizens access to the web. It doesn't have to actually do any good, in fact the law can make things worse and they really won't care as long as they can say they did something and the other guy didn't. That type of policy making can be just as dangerous as laws that place corporate greed ahead of the public good.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
OT - You're right about the Induce Act, and while one call alone doesn't make a difference, thousands will, so it's worth a few minutes of your time to help preserve the Betamax decision in the U.S. See savebetamax.org or eff.org for more information.
From: michael.brockington
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 10:46AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 11:07AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Actually, I thought I was pointing out the incompetence of U.S. politicians, particularly in the area of modern technology (say, post-rotary telephone). I suppose my attempt at a bit of self deprecating humor fell short there.
Does anyone know how the law would handle a site that was changed drastically after a suit was filed? Particularly if the old pages cited in the suit were deleted or updated as a part of the change? Many places don't archive all old versions of their web sites as a standard practice so this seems like it could happen. Is that destroying evidence? Would the suit then be without merit because the breach is corrected or is the suit still valid based on the fact that at one time the site was inaccessible? This is a bit past my level of legal acumen.
I agree that the 'until user agent' statements in the WCAG would be seriously problematic for anyone trying to hold a site to that standard in court. I imagine a decent lawyer could argue that point to death. They are guidelines, not laws, and are written with that in mind. I don't think it's a very good idea to base legal cases on them.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
From: Raena Armitage
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 11:15AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
On 01/10/2004, at 3:10 AM, khall51 wrote:
> Does anyone know how the law would handle a site that was changed
> drastically after a suit was filed? Particularly if the old pages
> cited in the suit were deleted or updated as a part of the change?
One would presume they would go right ahead and do it anyway. It'd be
like refusing to try an arson case after the building that burned down
was rebuilt.
In fact, Southwest Airlines made some efforts to make their site more
accessible not long after this complaint was made, but obviously that's
no barrier to the case making it to an appeal.
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 12:16PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Perhaps the key is to keep this issue out of the legal system and to sell
business on the benefits of web accessibility by speaking in business
language rather than civil rights language.
Glenda
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 12:24PM
Subject: RE
← Previous message | Next message →
> Thanks for your email. I will be out of the office on Thursday 30/9.
Could someone unsub this person?
-Darrel
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 12:25PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Said in a paragraph what I took 10 e-mails to get at...
-Kevin
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 12:50PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Kevin, sometimes simplisticity is the most effective!
So, maybe the next step is to figure out to speak 'web accessibility' in
business language? And to do this fairly quickly, before the legislators
swoop in. Personally, I would like to see way more info and figures for the
business case. I now have a potential opportunity to work with Chambers of
Commerce And I'm going to need that sort of information to get them to bite.
Cheers,
Glenda
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 1:39PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
> So, maybe the next step is to figure out to speak 'web accessibility'
> in business language? And to do this fairly quickly, before the
> legislators swoop in. Personally, I would like to see way more info
> and figures for the business case. I now have a potential
> opportunity to work with Chambers of Commerce And I'm going to need
> that sort of information to get them to bite.
I know it's an anology, and anologies can be dangerous, but I do find a lot
of parallels in the architecture/construction business and web
design/development business. The benefit is that there tends to be all sorts
of real-world cost issues analyzed in the construction business.
Fine Homebuilding had a nice 'sound-bite' pertaining to the costs of
accessibility:
http://mnteractive.com/universal-design-in-wood-and-pixels/
Accessibility isn't really a hindrance to any project. It's a benefit. You
just need to plan for it. Good business revolve around good planning.
-Darrel
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 1:55PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Darrel,
Yes, I've been thinking analogy way too lately. Rather than saying 'Web
Accessibility Specialist', which generally results in the glazed-over-eye
look, I'm wondering if something like 'virtual building inspector' or
'website building inspector' would be more understandable.
I mean, large companies have these impressive[=expensive] boardrooms that
serves a finite number of people per year. Yet making their site
accessible, which could potentially serve way, and probably at a fraction of
cost -- but that is such a 'leading edge' concept. How does it not make
good business sense?
I'll check out the sound bite.
Cheers,
Glenda
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Thu, Sep 30 2004 7:43PM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
Jim,
You clearly stated elsewhere that the case was dismissed on procedural
grounds, it boggles my mind that they do not listen. I wrote a not to the
auther of the article telling him how dangerous that headine was, he has not
answered nor do I expect him to.
Thank you for brining this up, and thank you for trying to keep them on
track.
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: Raena Armitage
Date: Fri, Oct 01 2004 12:58AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
On 01/10/2004, at 4:24 AM, glenda wrote:
> Perhaps the key is to keep this issue out of the legal system and to
> sell
> business on the benefits of web accessibility by speaking in business
> language rather than civil rights language.
Well, the question of whether it is relevant to someone's legal
obligations is still an issue for some of us, because some of us are in
places where that has in fact been made clear. I don't think it's fair
to say that none of this is worth discussing.
From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Oct 01 2004 7:02AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Oct 01 2004 8:54AM
Subject: Re: No decision from the Appeals court
← Previous message | Next message →
> What is important is
> to
> ensure that the professionals are the ones to make the decisions, so
> that
> sites are built to standard in the first place.
The web isn't concrete. Neither legislation or web professionals will ever
draw up a concensus that applies to the web as a whole. It'd tough enough
dealing with building codes (which tend to, literally and figuratively, be
concrete objects).
So, the solution is to listen to your customer, and then care about them.
Now, if our government passed a law requiring that, I'd be elated. ;o)
-Darrel
From: CATHY J HOLSING
Date: Mon, Oct 04 2004 6:56PM
Subject: Re
← Previous message | Next message →
I am out of town and may not have an opportunity to read or
respond to electronic mail.
From: CATHY J HOLSING
Date: Mon, Oct 04 2004 6:56PM
Subject: Re
← Previous message | Next message →
I am out of town and may not have an opportunity to read or
respond to electronic mail.
From: CATHY J HOLSING
Date: Sat, Nov 20 2004 11:03AM
Subject: Re
← Previous message | Next message →
I am out of the office and will not have an opportunity to read or
respond to electronic mail until 11/29.
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Feb 02 2005 4:53PM
Subject: Re
← Previous message | No next message
zara wrote:
> I am aware of the TEN standards for text e-mails but has
> anything been developed for the use of html and css ?
If you're using HTML, then in principle I'd say WCAG applies (at least
in part...obviously, things like using consistent navigation become
meaningless when looking at a single-document format that is an email).
Using structural markup and taking advantage of accessibility "hooks"
built into HTML would seem the most logical way forward.
Of course, some users will not be able to read HTML emails, so common
courtesy would be to offer users a choice between text or html when they
first sign up / opt in. Additionally, some email clients may behave in
weird and wonderful ways if the format of the email is pure, table-less,
css driven layout. See for instance
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/cssemail/
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
redux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com