Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g9N3jTX08877; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <762AB870-E60B-11D6-B5FF-0030656A26C8@worlded.org> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Jeff Carter <jcarter@worlded.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:2655] Re: Ruling: ADA doesn't apply to Web X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546) Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 5006 Lines: 99 On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 03:14 PM, Steve Linberg wrote: > It's not clear to me off the bat how or whether this will impact > Section > 508 requirements for federally-funded sites. I haven't read the Southwest decision yet but I can't imagine that it will have any impact on Section 508, which pertains specifically to electronic media procured by the federal government. This case was brought against a non-government, commercial business under a different law, the public accommodations part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I agree with Steve that this is a significant decision, however, and I'm a little surprised it hasn't received more attention in the press. I think the fact that is has to do with the ADA, and not 508, actually makes it a even bigger deal in the grand scheme of things. However, before saying anything else, I want to say that I don't think this case should have ANY impact on what anyone on this list is doing regarding educational technology accessibility. Whether your work is federally-funded, state-funded, or by virtue of your organization's mission or policies, there are still many legal, regulatory, and moral reasons to make electronic media and "virtual spaces" accessible to everyone. If you're interested in disability law or the WC3 work on accessibility and stuff then read on, but for everyone else, I want to emphasize that the Southwest decision, at least in my opinion, is NOT run-and-tell-the-boss, completely-change-what-you're-doing kind of news... That said, what's most interesting to me about this decision, (again, in my opinion), is that the judge refused to accept any broadening of the definition of "public accommodation" to anything beyond the specific physical spaces mentioned in the ADA (restaurants, etc.). Under this interpretation of the ADA, if I understand it correctly, that would mean that any kind of space not contemplated or invented in 1990 (or whenever the language of the ADA was crafted) -- such as the World Wide Web -- would not be subject to the pubic accommodation requirements of the ADA. It's pretty hard to specify something that doesn't exist yet. That interpretation is significant beyond the issue of Web site accessibility, it seems to me. By this logic, if the ADA had been written/enacted in 1910, then it could never have applied to commercial air travel, since commercial air travel wasn't invented until much later. In other words, this judge is saying that the ADA is essentially frozen in time -- that Congress meant only to have it to apply to public spheres which were around when the law was written. Is this _really_ what Congress intended? That's either a badly written law or a bad interpretation. > part of the judge's ruling hinged on the fact that there is no > established standard for measuring a site's accessibility, but the > people > who do the Web Accessibility Iniative would probably disagree. Yes, and that's the second thing that strikes me about this decision: the judge's easy dismissal of the the World Wide Web Consortium accessibility guidelines and the work that that people like Judy Brewer have done, not just here but around the world, to get those guidelines accepted. I'll be really interested, when I read the decision, to know why it was so easily dismissed. But again, it doesn't mean that work is thrown out or useless, or that we don't have to worry about accessibility anymore. This is one court, one decision, and just one area of disability law. > Validating and Bobby-checking your site's pages might not be a > requirement > in the face of this ruling Even before this case, there was no clear authority that _everyone_ had to validate or use Bobby. The clearest law we had -- and still have -- is for federally-procured electronic media, where developers really must follow the 508 guidelines at the very least. Otherwise, there often isn't clear guidance on what you are required to do, but again, good practice, especially for those of us in the adult education field, has been, and will continue to be, to make sites accessible. Here's a jaw-dropping side-note: it appears to me (please feel to correct me -- I sincerely hope I'm wrong) that the only version of the decision itself available from the court's Web site is a PDF without selectable text, which of course makes that PDF completely inaccessible to blind users. That fact alone says a lot about the way the disabled are dismissed in this country and why civil rights laws like the ADA, even if imperfect, are needed. <http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov> <http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/default.asp?file=cases/index.html> <http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/viewer/viewer.asp?file=/cases/opinions/ 02cv21734d24.pdf> Jeff Jeff Carter World Education Boston, MA (617) 482-9485 -------------- e-mail: jcarter@worlded.org <http://literacytech.worlded.org> <http://www.worlded.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:44:49 EST