Previous entry: "2-Jan-2002 -- Don’t Blow Your Fuse(box)" WebWord Home Page Next entry: "2-Jan-2002 -- Symbolizing accessibility"

01/02/2002 Archived Entry: "2-Jan-2002 -- WebWord Comment"

WebWord Comment -- The recent WebWord weblog entry about Amazon's accessibility site generated many comments. Then I started thinking about WebWord. Is WebWord accessible? After all, this is a site about usability; accessibility is something that I care about and talk about. I remember doing some accessibility testing many months ago, but I can't remember all of the results. I remember a few problems. For example, I use tables in a way that is not quite right and I don't use ALT tags in most places. Shame on me! Then again, does it really matter? Does it impact my credibility? I'm not sure. Surprisingly, I have never had anyone complain about the accessibility of WebWord. Perhaps I drove them away before they had a chance to complain (or make recommendations). By the way, if you want to take this opportunity to point out any problems, that would be fine. If I have the time, I'll make the changes.

Replies: 13 comments

Does it matter? Yes. The Americans with Disabilities Act is civil rights legislation. A non-accessible web site is a civil rights issue. It is discrimination.

Here's the common example... if you were a restaurant owner and you refused service to a customer because of their skin color, it would be fruitless to:

1. Claim ignorance of the law.

2. Hope for a grace period to comply with the law.

3. Hope to escape prosecution.

Suppose your brick 'n' mortar store was sued for an inaccessible bathroom. You can:

1) settle out of court.

2) burn money until you settle out of court.

3) lose in court and pay damages.

Lawyers love ADA suits because they are open and shut. It really doesn't matter whether you had ill will or were just clueless about people with disabilities or whether your city or county ok'd your construction plans. You are responsible for not discriminating.

When, and I do mean when, the ADA is specifically interpreted to apply to web sites, there will be a mad Y2K-like rush for web developers to retrofit web sites.

Posted by JS @ 01/03/2002 12:12 AM EST

It would be extremely difficult for any body to enforce disability standards on the web; I would be surprised if any site was 100% accessible to 100% of people, disabled or not. However, it makes good business sense to provide accessibility for the largest audience possible. Perhaps instead of legislating access, we should let the market dictate the requirements.

There's also the possibility that technology will make these standards unnecessary in the future.

Posted by jan @ 01/03/2002 08:54 AM EST

It is not particularly difficult to "enforce disability standards on the Web"; lots of governments do it. 100% access for everyone is not the goal, nor is it legally required. "The market" has resolutely failed to provide access and will continue to fail. Legal requirements are necessary.

Just the usual free-market-does-everything claptrap from Jan, who doesn't know what she's talking about.

Posted by Joe Clark @ 01/03/2002 09:27 AM EST

Ya, accessibility is already legislated by Section 508 for U.S. federal agencies and organizations that receive certain types of federal funds. Enforcement will occur naturally through the courts as has occurred with physical-world ADA issues.

Jan's reaction is common among people who see the W3C standards as confusing, murky, unneccessary or unachievable. I think Jan is in the unachievable camp.

Posted by JS @ 01/03/2002 10:18 AM EST

Claptrap? Hmmmm.

You're right. I wasn't aware that enforcing disability standards was high on any government's to-do list. It seems that most of the time, governments are more interested in limiting our access than in making sure we have access.

But legislation is not the answer. Governments have been trying to legislate morality and ethics as long as there have been governments & it never works. People (and businesses) just find ways to circumvent the laws they don't like.

Who will enforce these access requirements? Do I really want my tax money spent on this when there are people who don't have adequate shelter, clothing or food? Do those same people care that they don't have access when their bellies are rumbling with hunger?

Are we willing to see our grandmas put in jail because they forgot to include alt tags on their web pages?

Why shouldn't we make 100% access a goal? By saying it isn't a goal, aren't you discriminating against whatever percentage of people don't have access? What percent do you intend to leave out?

I would love to see everything in society 100% accessible to all people, regardless of disability, creed, color or any other potentially limiting factor. Maybe instead of trying to force people to comply, we should educate them, emphasizing the positive returns of making websites accessible. I can't see any designer/developer balking at adding something as simple as an img alt tag to his/her documents. Most accessibility standards are relatively easy to implement. Awareness is the key.

Intead of pouring money into enforcement, why not put money into research that will help all disabled people interact more fully with the whole of society instead of just one small part?

Posted by jan @ 01/03/2002 10:41 AM EST

The ADA is enforced via lawsuits and the fear of lawsuits brings even greater compliance without government action.

Legislation *is* the answer. Do you oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Do you think discrimination ends voluntarily? I'd like to live in your world.

Posted by JS @ 01/03/2002 11:25 AM EST

I don't have a legal background and am curious: Setting moral judgments aside for the moment, would the U.S. First Amendment be a defense against Web accessibilty lawsuits?

The Web is a form of communication. The First Amendment gives us free speech, which, conversely, gives us the right to not speak to a person or group of people.

If a business argued that its website was designed as a communication tool, and further argued that it did not want to reach a certain Web audience segment, so did not design for that audience, would that argument be valid in court?

Posted by jan @ 01/03/2002 11:51 AM EST

Ignorance is at the root of most discrimination. Yes, we had to pass the Civil Rights Act. Yes, we had to pass the ADA act. But in passing those acts, did we get rid of discrimination? No, although we may have tempered its more virulent, public symptoms.

We will not rid ourselves of discrimination unless and until individual attitudes change. And attitudes won't change until people get first-hand, positive knowledge of the group they're discriminating against.

Many times, people just miss the obvious; they change their thinking when injustice is pointed out. Some people will never change, though, no matter how logical an argument is. Those are the people (I hope they're the minority) for whom you are really writing legislation.

Instead of reacting to problems with a lawsuit, wouldn't it make more sense to first tell a company about the problems people are experiencing, then ask the company to effect changes? If the company refuses, then take action. There are probably many companies that simply have not thought about how people interact w/their sites (isn't that why we study usability?).

Common sense tells us that we should strive for the widest possible audience, but we design as individuals and don't always think of others in our audiences who aren't just like us. Education and awareness are critical.

As to living in my world: Maybe if more people lived in my world, the world would be a better place. We would be tolerant of others' differences, we would be more compassionate and more willing to help our fellow person. And we would teach our children to be the same. I still have hope that someday my world will be the world we all live in.

Posted by jan @ 01/03/2002 01:09 PM EST

John,

If you want to test out your site's accessiblity, why not try running through it a few times (with your monitor off) using the IBM Home Page Reader. You can download it at:
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/hprtrial3.html

From what ive tested, I had a hard time navigating thru it.

Posted by Assistive Technologist @ 01/03/2002 06:00 PM EST

Jan's problem, you see, is her complete ignorance of the entire history of disability activism, accommodation, and disability rights, of which Web access is merely an extension. Her willingness to expose her thorough ignorance to the world is, I suppose, brave.

Posted by Joe Clark @ 01/04/2002 08:48 AM EST

Thanks for that enlightened reply, Joe. It's given me a much better grasp of your viewpoint.

I do understand disability activism and its history. I also understand the need for laws regarding disability access in public buildings. I just don't agree with legislating Internet access.

One would think from the comments I've seen that web developers do nothing all day but sit at their PCs, thinking of obstacles they can put in the way of potential customers. Do you really think if developers were aware of disability standards, they would refuse to implement them? Why alienate a potential customer base?

As for sites that were developed before disability standards were implemented: Do the webmasters even know about the standards? Does legislation provide for informing every company about these standards so that new development may include them and already-developed pages may be updated? Where is the justice in allowing a company to be sued when the company doesn't even know it's in violation of a standard.

Disability access in public buildings is guaranteed through inspections. Contractors know the rules because they are published as part of the Universal Building Code.

But where is the Universal Development Code for the Web? Has it been disseminated to all companies who have or will potentially have web pages? I'm not referring to having people go out to a website, I'm talking about sending an explicit document to the web decisionmakers at every company.

I have systematically been going through our web pages to upgrade them according to the standards, not because a law is forcing me to do it, but because it's the right thing to do and because broadening our audience can only be good for business. If I can make my small corner of the web more accessible, then the whole Internet just becomes that much better.

My challenge to all of you, who claim to be passionate about disability web access, is to do the same. Bring every page you've every published to the web up-to-date with the standards. If you're a contractor, you owe it to the companies for whom you've developed pages to educate them and ensure that their pages are up-to-date. After all, your name will be on that lawsuit, too, as the expert who developed the site.

Posted by Jan @ 01/04/2002 01:35 PM EST

To answer the only substantive questions posed by Jan: The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines became a W3C recommendation (the closest they come to a standard, itself a serious deficiency) in May 1999. Section 508 was known to be coming down the pike for 2.5 years before its effective date in mid-2001 (and its specifics were known six months before that). Web developers have had nearly three years to get their act together. It goes without saying that accessibility is merely one of the W3C recommendations that has been widely ignored.

It is not necessary to upgrade every single page you've ever created, though it would be salutary to do so. My upcoming book gives a range of upgrade techniques, including "Make all new pages accessible and upgrade every old page you touch for any reason" – the strategy most developers would adopt and one that meets any standard of reasonable accommodation.

Posted by Joe Clark @ 01/05/2002 03:04 PM EST

Have anyone even heard about web-related ADA issues/lawsuits (finished)?
Please show me a link (at least one)…
As for question itself, I agree with JS that it is civil rights issue and discrimination.

Posted by Greg @ 01/07/2002 09:41 PM EST

Subscribe to Webword.com
Receive the best free usability newsletter on the Internet.

URL: http://www.WebWord.com/weblog/