The latest in my monthly column on accessibility at Practical eCommerce magazine is now available: Web Accessibility and the Law.
Although I’m not a lawyer, I do pay some attention to the nature of legal issues surrounding web accessibility. They’re murky, but this article attempts to shed some light on how the law covers accessibility issues on the internet.
Hope you’re able to get some value out of the article!
President Barack Obama’s approach to information transparency is admirable. His connection to the public through the major media channels of the digital age: the White House web site, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media methods is impressive. It’s a great way for the public to keep up to date on the activities of their government.
Unfortunately, the accessibility level of these web resources is — all in all — not really up to the levels one would hope for.
Obviously, the government has no control over the accessibility of the external resources they’re using to help promote their agenda and communicate with the public. These social media sharing sites are what they are, and regardless of their independent accessibility levels, I agree with the administrations choice to use them — to connect with their strong user bases — rather than attempt to build an expensive and potentially abandoned project to imitate the functionality.
However, the government does have direct and complete control over their own web presences, and would truly have wished to see a more thorough approach to web accessibility from the extensive network of new information-bearing web sites created by the Obama administration.
Read more at the WebAIM blog: “Target Lawsuit Settled.”
No legal definitions established today, I’m afraid to say. Although this is a victory on behalf of the claimants, who were awarded substantive damages on their claim, there was no establishment of any kind of legal precedent.
This is primarily due to one singular item in the settlement:
- No Admission of Liability. By agreeing to and voluntarily entering into this Agreement, there is no admission or concession by Target, direct or indirect, express or implied, that Target.com is in any way inaccessible or that Target has violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq., the Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code §§ 54 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq., or any other federal, state, or local law, regulation, order, or rule.
National Federation of the Blind vs. Target Corporation, Final Settlement
This statement clearly delineates a complete denial that there were any contradictions of law involved in the Target.com suit.
Ah, well. It is still a victory!
For a major issue in accessibility, I have to say that this really hasn’t seen much press. Granted, major lawsuits tend to move slowly — - glacially, you might say. However, given the fact that the last announcement concerning the National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation lawsuit was in September of 2006, you’d expect some kind of blog coverage on the latest announcement.
In fact, I found it difficult to find anything about it at all, at first — - I only became aware of it because I was talking to a web development manager from Target. (Articles are now easy to find via Google News.)
At any rate, the major news is that the lawsuit has been granted federal class-action status.
Granting class-action status allows blind people throughout the country who have tried to access Target.com to become plaintiffs in the suit, which alleges violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Associated Press
Further, the Judge (Marilyn Patel) ruled that changes in Target’s web site since the date of filing do not provide grounds for dismissal of the suit.
Judge Patel’s order Friday noted that Target has modified its Web site some since the suit’s filing to make the site more accessible to the blind. Target claimed the suit should therefore be dismissed, but Judge Patel ruled against that argument. Associated Press
Turning the suit into a class action may place additional pressure on businesses to start considering web accessibility a priority. One can hope, at any rate!
See also: Update: Target ruling may force retailers to adjust Web sites (Computer World)
My new article at Matt Bailey’s Accessibility Blog: Web Accessibility and International Law, looking at the issues raised concerning liability of companies concerning the use of their websites outside their geographical jurisdictions.
The post talks about the issues raised in the article “Computer-based exam discriminated against blind candidate” at Out-Law.com.
Hat tip to Kim Krause Berg, who is in turn tipping her own hat to Rosie Sherry. Article at The Register.
Although it’s interesting to see another lawsuit on the inaccessibility of a software product, this suit is fundamentally different from the Target lawsuit currently in process. That lawsuit, dealing with a commercial website’s accessibility level to the general public, has the potential to set a landmark precedent for website accessibility. No United States law currently explicitly states that a commercial website must provide any level of accessibility. This lawsuit could potentially provide a precedent which would interpret existing law as having this requirement.
This Oracle lawsuit, however, involves software which is a) not a website and b) was purchased by the state of Texas for use in their state human resources department. The fact that the lawsuit is associated with a government entity makes this a very different case. Texas state law as well as Federal law clearly address the issue of accessibility of government technology: the state of Texas has extensive guidelines concerning accessibility which should be referred to when constructing web sites or other electronic or information resources:
House Bill 2819, 79th Regular Legislative Session
State agencies must ensure that state employees and members of the public with disabilities have the same access to electronic and information resources as state employees and members of the public without disabilities, unless providing that access would impose a significant difficulty or expense on the agency.
The provision of a necessary piece of work software which does not meet these standards is a direct contradiction of Texas state law. This lawsuit will not have the same impact, legally, that the Target case has.
That’s not to say that it’s insignificant, however. It will help bring issues of accessibility to a greater awareness, as well as encouraging a large software company to make accessibility a greater consideration for their own products. It may not result in a major new interpretation of law, but should certainly result in better software for the human resources department of the state of Texas.
Courtesy of Kim Krause Berg, a great summary of accessibility policies by country.
A big deal is frequently made of Section 508, the United States accessibility guidelines, WCAG 1.0, and the accessibility rules set by the UK: The Disability Discrimination Act. But what if your primary audience is in Belgium?
Even though very, very few countries currently provide laws requiring accessibility for privately owned commercial sites, it’s always a possibility that this could happen: it’s a good idea to keep your eyes on the regulations currently applicable in any given country.
Better, of course, is to just make your site as accessible as you reasonably can and figure that whatever legal changes occur you should be in the clear &mdash at the worst, you’ll fail their stringent requirements but have clearly demonstrated your efforts!
