|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: October 07, 2002 Suit Over Airlines' Web Sites Tests Bounds of ADA -- "When Robert Gumson logs on to the Internet, he uses a software program that converts Web site content into speech. But when he logged on to Southwest Airlines' Web site to make a reservation, Gumson, who is blind, found that the site was incompatible with his screen-reader program." (Comments: Do you think filing a lawsuit is the best way to get a company to change its web site?)
Reader Comments...
It's the only way. That's been proven with other ADA lawsuits. Companies do not act without fear of litigation. Right to sue is as important a 'balance of power' as the USA's three branches of government and news media. Posted by: on October 7, 2002 10:41 PM
What's the difference between Section 508 and the ADA? Or is Section 508 part of ADA? I agree with the post above, it's the only way large companies will take notice. There are many examples of companies in the UK that that try to be socially conscious and have perfectly good disabled access at their physical facilities. Yet they don't realize that blind/visually impaired people use the internet at all, let alone can be blocked by certain technical aspects. Perhaps after a couple more cases, accessible design will be made a necessity and become the norm.
I really hope that this case goes through without settling so that the judge will rule that the web is 'goods or services'. We have the same problem here in the UK; the Disability Discrimination Act here doesn't explicitly include web sites as goods or services (although they're obviously within the spirit of the law) so it's a grey area. If the judge in the US (or some future judge in the UK) finds that these airlines are in contravention of the ADA (regardless of 508 which only applies to sites doing business with the government) the case for accessibility on the web gets a great fillip. If corporations won't do the right thing (and stay within the spirit of the law) then litigation by an individual or lobby group is the only way. Posted by: glasshaus Bruce on October 8, 2002 05:01 AM
I strongly disagree with taking legal action to resolve the issue. Large companies can respond by making their sites compatible with screen reader technology which will probably not result in a usable solution. Site publishers with less resources may just go out of business when faced with a law-suit. Why not buy a 'southwestsucks.com' domain and start an online campaign to improve the situation. Tie it in with demands for better access at airports and maybe it could really make some difference to peoples lives. Over reliance on litigation will only come back and bite us all on the ass. Posted by: Mac on October 8, 2002 05:11 AM
Section 508 only applies to Govt agencies and their presentation of web sites. This will be an interesting test. But what surprises me the most is that someone in the US is suing over this ;)... it must be cheaper than picking up the phone and making a complaint.
it would be easier to make a complaint on the phone, but in the case of the ADA/ UK DDA where the laws were drafted pre-web, sometimes it's necessary to force a judgement to set a precedent, just to clarify the law and let us all know where we stand - like
More than ten years after the ADA was passed, we still see widespread non-compliance in everything from store entrances to store isles to bathrooms. Lawsuits are the only way. Posted by: on October 8, 2002 02:16 PM
Lawsuits generally end up benefiting the individual to the detriment of the people at large. Costs will always be passed on to all of us. There is a reason why Shakespeare wrote, "The first thing we do, let's kill the lawyers." Posted by: boysen on October 8, 2002 03:26 PM
so, businesses ignore the law for 10+ years, then get sued because their businesses are not accessible, and you blame the lawyers? interesting. i wonder if you would take the same stance toward a business that refused to serve a person of a particular ethnicity. it's the same issue. accessibility is a civil rights issue. american courts see it that way. people who face discrimination have no other alternative. the law is enforced in the courts. Posted by: on October 8, 2002 04:29 PM
.. doing a little more research on bipc.com this morning, it appears that Mr Gumson, the litigant in the web accessibility case, is not after personal enrichment at all (as I speculated last night). He's a member of a Miami Beach-based disability rights group called "Access Now". More power to his elbow. I think anyone offering 'net only' offers/ discounts should be *obliged* to make their sites accessible. Posted by: glasshaus Bruce on October 9, 2002 05:54 AM
I would like to see full accessibility to all public websites, but I detest lawsuits. Whether they're to make a fast buck or not, lawsuits are a poor way to accomplish change. They create an adversarial relationship that often precludes reason. We tend to dig in our heels when we think we're being forced to do something. You'll get the minimum the law requires, but the companies are not going to go the extra mile. Did this guy ask the airline whether he could suggest some ways or some people to talk to for the airline to make the site accessible, or was his first reaction to jump to a lawsuit? Are disabled people expecting instant results, or are they willing to give a company some time to accommodate them? It would be next to impossible to make any but smaller sites completely accessible overnight. A reasonable approach would be to provide an attainable deadline for a conversion. Do we want justice? An example: Mom and Pop decide they have some items that might sell well online, so they put their little store on the Internet, not realizing there are accessibility guidelines and not knowing anything about how they can make their site more accessible. Mom and Pop get slapped with a lawsuit they can't afford. They shut down their website. Not only can the disabled person not get the products online, no one else can either. I guess that's equal access. No, wait, not quite. The non-disabled person who has no trouble getting around can get to the store to buy a product. The disabled person who can't get around sues the store because he/she can't get there to buy the product. Maybe ignorance is no excuse, but if the people who are concerned about accessibility issues publicized the ADA and approached companies in a reasonable manner with suggestions on how they can make sites accessible, more companies might become educated and convert their web pages. But this, like most things, takes time and effort. The question then becomes, are the disabled and advocates for the disabled willing to commit the time and effort to this educational process and give it a chance to succeed? Let's face it: The primary reason the advocacy group wants to bring a lawsuit is that it wants the publicity a suit would generate. Think how much easier it will be for them to publicize their issue if they punished some big company and grabbed a lot of headlines. They don't want to take the time and expend the effort. Maybe some companies won't do anything to provide website accessibility unless someone forces them to. But a lawsuit should be a last resort. Posted by: jan on October 9, 2002 11:28 AM
Let's face it: The primary reason the advocacy group wants to bring a lawsuit is that it wants the publicity a suit would generate. Can you point us to any statements of claim to back up that assertion? Or could it be that the plaintiff was actually subject to the discriminatory treatment he claimed? Or perhaps the plaintiff and Access Now are also advancing this as a test case to put to rest any speculation about whether the ADA does or does not apply to the Web? Posted by: Joe Clark on October 9, 2002 01:40 PM
There should be a way organizations or individuals can pressure a company into compliance with accessibility. However, it should not be through a lawsuit claiming discrimination. He could have picked up a phone and completed his reservation, so he was not barred from obtaining goods or services. The Internet is not a physical place - it should be treated like a phone service and they should go about it the same way deaf organizations pressure companies into accepting teletype calls. Accessibility is mandatory for federal websites, but individual site owners and companies shouldn't be forced into making their websites accessible. If they want to deal with the lost revenue, that's their problem. That is why (IMO) lawsuits aren't the answer. Grassroots campaigns are. Get them to change their ways by not challenging them. Slap a lawsuit and they will do the bare minimum. Get them to realize how you are affecting their bottom line and accessibility will become more of a standard practice for good business. Posted by: Lydia on October 9, 2002 07:27 PM
Lydia wrote "he could have picked up a phone and completed his reservation, so he was not barred from obtaining goods or services." But he could not have got the best rate that way, as many web sites offer special net-only deals. So he was being discriminated against in that he couldn't get the cheapest price, as the web site is inaccessible. Grassroots campaigns have been running for years; Joe Clark, and me at glasshaus have produced books on how to make web sites accessible (it ain't rocket surgery). In the UK, Julie Howell in the Royal National Institute for the Blind has been running a campaign that has successfully persuaded companies to design for access. But, the ADA (US) and DDA (UK) do not explicitly mandate that web sites are required to offer access to goods and services to the disabled/ visually impaired, simply because the legislations were written pre-web. So this is a test-case not so much to force XYZ Widget Company Ltd/ Inc to make their site accessible, nor to enrich Jane-Doe-the-victim at XYZ Widget's expense, but rather to get a judicial ruling that clarifies the law: is denying John Joe/ John Bull the cheapest ticket because he can't use the web discriminatory under the terms of the disability discrimination act? Only a judge can rule on that. Posted by: glasshaus Bruce on October 10, 2002 06:12 AM
I saw a poll on TechTv.com regarding is most agree with the suit charging web sites to make their sites accessible to blind. 75% said that do not agree with the suit and the requirement. Personally, I think there is a lack of awareness in alternatives that the web sites and the disabled community have regarding accessibility. Why should a web site conform to a non-standard software program not regulated by the government. Should southwest be sued again for not being compliant with another screenreading program? Why can't this woman pick up the phone and book the flight this way? Why should she make it hard on herself by navigating web sites that really are catered to the visual population. I agree that web sites should be accessible to the visually impaired. I started a company based on this idea. However, suing a company to be compliant is the wrong way to go about ADA compliance. Using modern tools like those from my company www.voicewebsolutions.net can make the experience much more enjoyable for the disabled person. Big things are going to happen soon. Cheers, Brian Posted by: Brian Ty Graham on October 16, 2002 04:58 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |