Websites and Visual Impairment

Remove all ads!

I came across this story via a link on Anandtech.

Interesting. I never knew such software existed.

On the one hand, some people will argue that the Web is, by its nature, a visual media which almost by definition would be inaccessible to those people who are blind. On the other hand, as there is software which exists to allow blind access, others would argue that reasonable efforts should be made by web sites to design their pages in order to allow accessibility to the blind.

Thoughts?

 

...

 

It's not civil rights, it's civil oppression. There are standards of webdesign geared towards those who can't or won't use a normal computer with normal input and output devices, but the number of those people is so relatively low that it doesn't pay unless the site is specifically intended for use by such people or it's a major site with crowds of visitors and lots of staffers.

So, what's next? Perhaps companies should be sued for having websites. Wonder when people will be sued for being rich while some others are poor.

 

Yeah, nowadays you can't do anything without getting a bunch of people complaining about; people complains about just everything; you hear about organizations/asociations you never thought it would exist: Asociation Against People Who Feed Pigeons... etc...

So how much this guy will ask? 20 millions? When I hear about these kind of sues I wonder what the heck I'm doing here.

 

Yeah, a lawsuit was supposed to be a remedy to a situation in which someone suffers while someone else should really be the one to carry the burden. Nowadays, in some countries, it's a way of earning money. I suppose there are many people who just dream something bad would happen to them so they could rip off a wealthy corporation for a million or something. Not like you won't get at least a couple thousand from your fellow common citizen.

 

Yes, it's nearly impossible but you could pull it off a little more easily by employing separate stylesheets for all the media. But you would have to test your site on everything that's going to display it and come on, who owns all that stuff?

Basically, the most you can do is XHTML strict, a more or less clear and compatible stylesheet and the use of headlines, alt texts, [link] tags with all the funny params, contextual mark-up and all (blaaah) plus no client-side thingies like JavaScript and the like. I would only do it for a per hour of work fee, no excuses, if at all.

 

I wonder when blind people buy a computer package, do they keep the screen? Same for deaf people, do they keep the speakers? Fact of the matter is that they're impaired and it's unfair to expect everybody to accomidate their impairment.

Also, I fail to see how this could possibly stand up in court. The person doesn't HAVE to purchase these products. If my store has stairs leading up to the enterance and I sell bicycles can a paraplegic sue me for not having wheelchair access? I have no respect for this blind person at all. They're just being stupid and I fail to see why they should recieve any type of payment.

 

First, I'd like to say that I'm a slight bit disappointed by the vehemence with which some people are putting this guy down. Saying that they don't deserve this accomodation is right on the money; stores and websites are not obligated to provide this accomodation, but they also hurt themselves a tiny bit by denying that area of the market. But saying that they have no right to expect any accomodations on anything?

Yes; he has every right to AFAIK (though admittedly I'm not a lawyer like some other members *coughchevcough* ). And you would be the one paying the price for being stupid enough to open your shop there and not provide access. How hard is it to find a place that doesn't have stairs to the entrance? All the bike shops I've ever seen were on the same level as the sidewalk, so it's clearly not that hard.

You may very well win the case in court based on jurors caring more about reasonableness than the letter of the law (thankfully), but in the meantime you waste time and money fighting it. And you're still a fool for leaving yourself open to dummies with lawyers.

No, they just don't buy them in the first place. They're blind or deaf, not stupid. That FACT of the matter is that they're impaired and it's not fair to expect them to do everything we can without help. We can, should, and do provide a reasonable amount of help.

That said, this doesn't fall under reasonable at all. I have a hard time thinking of internet shopping as necessary to a good life, and the blind person still has options. He could *gasp* actually get off his butt and go to the store; plenty of blind people in Madison do the same thing every week (by bus) and I can only imagine that the mass transit system near a university like Berkley would be as good.

And before you ask, yes, I walk and bus everywhere, including an hour-long ride to college and an hour-long ride back. There are also oh so many easy accomodations for the blind on buses as well, including an announcement of the route when the doors open, and announcements of each stop (handled automatically via pre-existing GPS). As someone who isn't blind, you learn to tune these things out fairly well (especially since the volume is reasonable), even to the point where I can sleep through them.

No, I think this is a matter of promotion. These online stores have the opportunity to grab the online blind market away from other competitors by being one of the first to support such software. Think of the profits!

 

@ Abomination - In the example you stated, you actually WOULD be on the hook for the lawsuit, as Fel stated. At least in the US, all public areas are required to have handicap access. So yeah, even though it would be silly, you'd have to provide a handicap entrance to a bike store, even if someone who doesn't have use of their legs couldn't possibly ride a bike. That's considered a "reasonable accomodation".

However, in the sales arena, I don't think retailers are required to make their products more easily accessible to anyone. Granted, there generally doesn't need to be a law about this, because most retail stores do in fact try to make their products as accessible as possible to as many people as possible to maximize their sales. However, as BTA points out, the blind population is miniscule - way, WAY less than 1% of the population - and it is unlikely that the increase in sales would offset the cost of implementing and maintaining the software.

Plus, I think it goes back to the "reasonable accomodation" standard. Demanding a website be accessible to the visually impaired is as unreasonable as that person going to the store and demanding an employee walk around with them and describe in detail every item in the store. That's simply not a reasonable request. If you are unsatisfied by the level of service you receive from a store, you are free to take your business elsewhere, but I can hardly believe that you could sue the store because of it.

 

But privately owned stores aren't public areas, are they? Anyway, I think this would more closely compare to a TV network not having subtext for deaf people.

 

The store itself is privately owned, but it is open to the public. Anyone can go inside. If that were true, no companies would need to provide handicap access such as ramps or elevators.

 

Hmm, as far as I was aware only the goverment had any rules in place saying that facilities have to be wheel chair accessible.

I think that if you look around you will see a large number of businesses whose premises are not in the slightest bit wheel chair accessible.

I believe that most businesses opt to make their facilities accessible for PR's sake plus to make things convenient for their customers - not because of some rule or law saying that they have to do so.

 

I did some research, and found a few facts.

According to the NFB, there were 1.3 million legally blind people in the U.S. in 1995. At that time, total U.S. population was 261 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. So Legally blind people account for 0.5% of the total population - not huge, but not insignificant either.

Based on that, “reasonable accommodation” would seem to apply here. So it comes down to “what is reasonable?” What software is available to make websites accessible? How much would it cost to implement it? And what is reasonable for one company may not be reasonable for another – Target would be better able to absorb the related costs than would Ma & Pop Corner Store.com

The other issue would be limitations on design, as Tal pointed out. According to this site, the ALT tag (whatever that is) doesn’t work well with heavy graphics. However, as we all know, graphics often play a large role in making a web site appealing, and if one site was light on graphics to accommodate the software, and another site wasn’t, there could well be a competitive disadvantage.

Tough call here. On the one hand, I’m all for “reasonable accommodation”, but on the other hand, I’m not sure that technology at this point allows for it.

 

I suppose it would be possible, for a major store like Target, to have a second website dedicated to using this type of software. If the main purpose of it is to allow blind people use the net, then they wouldn't have to use graphics at all on this second site.

 

UK answer from this time last year:

http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml

From the Disabled Discrimination Act:

2.2 (p7): “The Disability Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a disabled person by refusing to provide any service which it provides to members of the public.”
4.7 (p39): “From 1st October 1999 a service provider has to take reasonable steps to change a practice which makes it unreasonably difficult for disabled people to make use of its services.”
2.13 - 2.17 (p11-13): “What services are affected by the Disability Discrimination Act? An airline company provides a flight reservation and booking service to the public on its website. This is a provision of a service and is subject to the act.”
5.23 (p71): “For people with visual impairments, the range of auxiliary aids or services which it might be reasonable to provide to ensure that services are accessible might include ... accessible websites.”
5.26 (p68): “For people with hearing disabilities, the range of auxiliary aids or services which it might be reasonable to provide to ensure that services are accessible might include ... accessible websites.”

Also:

The courts will also no doubt take guidance from the outcome of an Australian case in 2000, when a blind man successfully sued the Sydney Olympics organising committee over their inaccessible website. (The Australian Disability Discrimination Act quite closely resembles that of the UK's.) UK courts may also take into account the New York case against Ramada.com and Priceline.com, who were also successfully sued over the accessibility of their websites.