cases

This page looks at some online accessibility cases.

It covers -

• orientation
• politics of online disability
• SOCOG
• NFB v AOL and other US cases

     orientation

Our contention is that online accessibility is both commercially desirable and socially responsible. However, it has proved to be a low priority for some organisations, perhaps because online publishing is still quite new. As a result, it is being slowly driven by the courts - and by public embarrassment - rather than best practice.

     a politics of online disability

The absence of a large body of case law (or merely well-known disputes and settlements) regarding online accessibility is perhaps not surprising, given both

• the politics of disability in advanced and emerging economies and
• the absence of successful litigation (ie case law breeds case law).

Few sites and online services don't work at all; they merely don't work well ... whether for 'ordinary' users or for those with some disadvantage. Agreement about what constitutes an appropriate degree of functionality - and what can be done to address accessibility problems - has been slow to emerge.

And as a blind contact commented to us, many people live in a ghetto of disadvantage, with low expectations and with an investment in navigating through day to day life rather than securing change by lobbying the digerati. Barriers impeding access to a building can be highlighted through, for example, a sit-in - or outside of - that location. Does being online mean that in cyberspace no one can tell that you're a dog ... or that you're having problems (the 'unsighted' are out of sight and out of mind).

Change is impeded by the fractious nature of the disability advocacy sector, where inter-organisation disputes are often as intense as campaigns for social equity and there's disagreement about appropriate objectives.

Perspectives are provided by The New Disability History: American Perspectives (New York: New York Uni Press 2001) edited by Paul Longmore & Lauri Umansky and the collection Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future edited by Len Barton & Mike Oliver.

     SOCOG

During 2000 in Australia SOCOG was fined $20,000 after ignoring the adverse ruling by the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in Maguire v SOCOG, the landmark 'online accessibility' case under the Disability Discrimination Act.  

Mr Maguire claimed that SOCOG breached the legislation by refusing to format the Olympic Games website (archived here) in a way that can be converted to braille or synthesized speech.

     NFB v AOL and other US cases

During October 2000 a provision of the Workforce Investment Act 1998 mandated use of the W3C accessibility standards by US federal government agencies. In July 2001 the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) - the largest US consumer advocacy group for the visually disabled - claimed victory in a dispute with AOL, the largest US internet service provider. 

The NFB announced that it had withdrawn litigation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). AOL formally agreed to recognise the needs of the disabled. In particular, it will ensure its next generation of software is compatible with screen reader technology.

The litigation commenced in 1998. The NFB argued that AOL, like many ISPs, had breached the anti-discrimination legislation by failing to provide appropriate access for the blind. AOL services were not compatible with devices that translate on-screen text into sound.

AOL marked the agreement by publishing an accessibility policy statement (better late than never) on its corporate site. The change is flowing through to other ISPs. 

The outcomes of litigation in the US have been mixed.

In 2002 a US Federal District Court in Georgia held in Martin v. Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Authority (PDF) that an agency had violated regulations under the ADA because its "web page was not formatted in such a way that it can be read by persons who are blind" using screen reader software. However, in the same year a US Federal District Court in Florida dismissed action by advocacy group Access Now, finding that the Southwest Airlines web site was not a "place of public accommodation" in relation to the ADA.  Access Now had sued the airline under the ADA, claiming that the web site was incompatible with screen-reading software.  The judge refused to expand the ADA's definition of "public accommodation" beyond physical facilities - ramps are appropriate outside offices but not, it seems, in cyberspace - and instead suggested changes to the legislation.

   jump  to Web Design Guide