Is Blind Inaccessability Discrimination?

Which would be bionic eyes?

 

I'm proposing people get off their laurals and start doing what we know we can do to make the Web more accessible. Are you proposing that we wait around for something that is currently not in the realm of feasibility? While we're waiting another hundred years for this magical recognition software you are certain we will create, why dont we spend the time making things that everyone can actually use? I see pushing this onto the technology developers as a cop out for people who cannot be bothered to do what is already in their power to do to make the Web more accessible.

 

and it really really really really really isn't that hard you could even keep your normal layout, just wrap individual sections in <divs>

 

I’m in the US, but according to a site called silktide, there is already a law in place in Britain requiring compliance to the W3C standards. I think it’s just a matter of time until the USA implements something similar.

“This website is probably unlawful in Britain from the 1st October 2004. The British Disability Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person by refusing to provide any service provided to members of the public - including websites.”


I would like to introduce another reason why it’s a good idea to making your website accessible though. >>If a blind person can read your site well, think of how well described/documented your site will be for the search engines.

My site is not totally compliant, but I have taken the guidelines into account as best as possible. I figure the closer I follow the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the better off my site will be.

Following some of guidelines for accessibility will only improve your site, many are just common sense. It’s a good way to further SEO your site, without spamming it up or comment keyword stuffing.

1. Give each frame a title.

2. If an image conveys important information beyond what is in its alternative text, provide an extended description.

3. If you use color to convey information, make sure the information is also represented another way.

4. If this is a data table (not used for layout only), identify headers for the table rows and columns.


Here are 2 good tools I found to check compliance, and give you tips to improve (seo) your site

http://www.silktide.com

http://webxact3.watchfire.com/report.asp

 

Excellent post corinaw. People forget that human visitors are not the only ones who reward you for developing conscientiously.

Minus a couple brief displays of ignorance, this has been an interesting, empassioned debate. I've enjoyed it quite a bit. I'm signing out now. See ya'll in about 15 hours

 

It is when it is said "why should I cater to a small percentage of people?". If you are not treating everyone as an equal that is bigotry. It really is that simple.

I'm sorry, I consider all of this common knowledge. I didn't think it would have to be rehashed yet again.

To put it simply (as I believe I've already said) to alienate one single visitor is bad business. Even a personal hobby site benefits from visitors. A business site that makes it hard for a handicapped person to navigate could lose thousands of dollars.

Me? I want all the business I can drum up. I love capitalism.

 

I don't think anyone here denies that websites would be better off if they were blind accessable... the question here is whether or not a website should face a lawsuite for discrimination if it's not accessable.

You honestly think it's fair for .01% of internet users to file lawsuits against millions of websites not designed in valid CSS? I'm not unsympathetic, I just can't understand that reasoning.

What's next? Tax on emails? Civil suites against companies with dead links on their site? Penalties for not using a certain type of navigation? Must design websites in font size 20 so people with bad vision don't have to strain? All websites must be designed for the same screen resolution? All javascript banned from web pages? Businesses forced to have a website so handicapped people can shop from home?

I ask again, where do we draw the line?

 

Many, many, many sites replace header and menu text with images. The text in the image is meant to be read.

Look at this page: http://www.imaginekitty.com/bad.html

Here is what a screen reader will see:

                                                                  Untitled-1 
                                                                                
   [Untitled-1_01.gif]                                                          
   [Untitled-1_02.gif] [Untitled-1_03.gif] [Untitled-1_04.gif]                  
                       [Untitled-1_05.gif]                                      
                       [Untitled-1_06.gif]                                      
                       [Untitled-1_07.gif]                                      
                       [Untitled-1_08.gif]                                      
                       [Untitled-1_09.gif]                                      
                       [Untitled-1_10.gif]                                      
                       [Untitled-1_11.gif]                                      
                       [Untitled-1_12.gif]  

Code (markup):

You may think that is an extreme case (and it is) but I have see it live on the web like that and worse.

I agree with you. Is it fair to file a lawsuit? Not really. Does it happen? Absolutely.

I believe in voting with your wallet. If a site "offends" you don't buy from it and let them know why. If they lose enough sales then maybe they'll change. As for me, adding a few accessibility points to my sites is so simple I don't see why anyone wouldn't do the same. Potential customers are important to me.

 

But umm....a blind person can go to a department store and ask for assistance from the store's staff. Actually, they're legally required to do so, same with educational facilities.

 

Sure, but it'd be more cost efficient just to make it up to standards

 

Let's not forget the most active and largest web surfer in the world is blind. That surfer is google.com!

Remember your accessible sites will rank better.

 

I'd say it is yes.

 

First post - and a very interesting thread.

It is clear there are a number of people/web developers here who understand the ethics and business reasons behind making websites accessibile to as many people as possible - not just to those site visitors who are blind, but to people with mobility and cognitive problems. Just think how many potential purchasers could leave an inaccessible e-commerce site and go elsewhere. There are people here who, clearly, already practice accessibility in their daily grind - good for you. There are those who don't actually understand but are willing to try - good for you too. Frankly, to those new to accessibility, if you can produce valid code, read, understand and implement some guidelines you are most of the way towards producing an accessible site. Accessibility is not rocket science - although infinitely nested non-linearized tables may well be

Then there are the others. The ones who do not or refuse to understand, are not willing to learn and attack those who do understand and are willing to learn. They are the same people who do not even appreciate their words and "screenies" are being noticed by people who head-hunt for web developers. I lurk on a number of fora, as part of my job, looking for enlightened web developers. I was lured here from another forum, because I found it hard to believe some of the reports about what had been said by some people here.

In the UK it has been illegal to own an inaccessible website since 1999. No case law yet (although there have been cases settled out of court) but keep your eyes peeled - there are several new initiatives afoot. In Australia accessible websites are becoming the norm. In the US - well - what can I say, there have been a couple of cases but no precedents - the learned justices could not agree. Maybe Target will set the precedent, who knows?

Oh and if I may say forum administrators the registration process is not accessible. The wiggly registration "image" cannot be read by screen-readers or people who have poor eye-sight - you may have forgotten how many older people there are in the world whose sight is not as good as it was and who might quite like to join the forum.

 

No, the question was, "is it discrimination?" Whether a suit should/could be brought is a different question.

I don't know where in hell you get your numbers. Do you honestly believe (since that's a made up number), that only one in ten-thousand people is vision-impaired? Hmm. The CDC, using NIH data, sz the number for children, 10 and under, is 7 in 10,000. That alone is seven times your number. Further the number for adults, 40 and older is 3.4 million vision impaired. That's 114 times your number.

Is it fair that they sue? Probably. I would if I were denied access to an open-to-the-public web business by artificial barriers, erected simply because the site developer was ignorant of or indifferent to well established and non-onerous standards.

Specious, deceptive and non applicable arguments.

Again, simple adherance to well established standards and practices that any professional web developer is familiar with is sufficient. Separating the presentation and behavior, css and javascript, respectively, from the content and its structural markup means that the page is renderable and accessible with or without either or both of css and javascript. We are not talking about any extra ordinary steps, just professional craftsmanship.

Screen rez designs, that's up to your pride in your craft. Font size is out of your control. The user can always override your choice. Using relative sizes rather than px will make it easier on users of obsolete browsers like IE.

Get real.

gary

 

I wished we had some blind people here giving us input on what they think/feel. Not making fun, it would be cool to have someone access DP thru voice and braille and whatever else it may take to make it possible for them to participate in these conversations.

 

The precedent was set in Australia back in 2000, when the Sydney Olympic Committee was sued by a blind man who could not access information on their site. IIRC, this was the first recorded instance of a successful lawsuit regarding accessibility. He won $20k in punitive damages, and SOC had to make necessary revisions.

Target will not set a precedent, because unless circumstances radically change, everything will be settled out of court. Thus there will be no legal precedent.

But the Web is in its infancy. Twelve years of true, open consumer use is a very short time in the life cycle of any medium (yes, I also had an email account back in the mid-80s - I'm talking about general consumer awareness and usage). Lorraine, I would approach questions like this with optimism, not cynicism. Think about how this discussion would have unfolded five years ago, versus the debate that took place over the last few days. We've come a long way

 

I do believe he said 'internet users'. 100% of those that are blind are not internet users-- probably a very very small % of this already small 1.14% of blind adults are. And of that 1.14% that are visually impaired, I'm sure a much smaller number of people actually use screen readers.

I wear glasses; Am I visually impaired? According to that site, it lists near-sightedness in the list, so I guess I am in that number?

Well, thank you very much for being part of one of the biggest problems in this country.



--
Derek