“What a tangled web we weave. . .

” Sir Walter Scott offered

that bit of wisdom centuries ago and the words are true to this

day although they take on a slightly different meaning in

today’s technological era. According to US Department of

Justice statistics, more than 50 million Americans are currently

disabled and 71.5 million Baby Boomers will require products and

services to help them untangle the Web.

In an age where change happens at lighting speed, somehow

website accessibility is still on dialup. A recent class action

lawsuit by the National Federation of the Blind against Target

Corporation illustrates the scope of the problem. The suit

raises the claim that Target violated the Americans With

Disabilities Act by failing to implement programming code on its

website that is compatible with software enabling the blind to

navigate the site.

How tangled is the web? A United Nations study of website

accessibility presented as part of the International Day of

Disabled Persons, reported that 97 percent of websites in 20

countries do not offer the minimum functionality established by

the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Minimum functionality

is defined as adequate text descriptions for graphical content

so that the visually impaired could 'read' pictures. Among the

findings:
 • 73% relied on JavaScript for functionality, which

interferes with screen magnification software

• 78% used colors with poor contrast, causing issues for

those with color blindness

• 98% did not follow industry standards for programming code

• 97% did not allow people to alter or resize pages

• 89% offered poor page navigation, causing problems for

those with mobility issues

• 87% used pop-ups causing problems for those with light-

sensitive epilepsy issues

Mark Gristock, marketing director of usability firm

Foviance, is unfazed by the results. “. . . The guidelines have

been in place for seven years but they aren't actually

checkpoints so people can interpret them in a variety of ways.

What is needed is practical advice about what happens when you

build a website.”

The question that begs to be answered is “Does the

Americans With Disabilities Act apply to the World Wide Web? In

1990 when the Act was passed, the mass reach of the Internet was

little realized, however, the wording of the legislation appears

to show forethought in having been left open for interpretation.

Specifically, Section 12182 of the act states . . .

•Disabled individuals should receive full and equal enjoyment of

the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

accommodations of any place of public accommodation.

•Goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and

accommodations shall be available to an individual with a

disability in integrated setting meeting individual’s needs.

•Reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures,

when necessary to afford goods, services, or accommodations to

individuals with disabilities, unless entity can prove

modifications would alter the nature of such goods, services, or

accommodations.

Is a website, however, a place of public accommodation?

Prior court rulings have found that because websites have no

connection to a brick and mortar physical location, they are not

subject to the guidelines set forth in the Americans With

Disabilities Act. In the first case to examine the issue, Access

Now, a group that endorses website accessibility for the blind

and Robert Gumson filed suit to compel Southwest Airlines to

revamp its website to make it accessible to the blind. The

argument rested on the assertion that because the website was

not easily navigated by the visually impaired, that those

individuals were being denied online only specials and

promotions, and therefore access to the same accommodations that

non-handicapped persons benefit from. US District Judge

Patricia Seitz ruled that the ADA only refers to brick and

mortar spaces, and not to the Internet. “To expand the ADA to

cover “virtual spaces” would be to create new rights without

well-defined standards. The plain and unambiguous language of

the statute and relevant regulations does not include Internet

Web sites.”

Why don't more firms keep accessibility in mind? Mike Paciello,

a Web accessibility consultant says, "They don't see the market.

The moment you tell a company how important it is to their

business to make their Web site accessible, they come back with

statistics that the market isn't big enough for them to spend

the money."

But developing an accessible site is pricey only if you're

redesigning a large site from the ground up, contends Kynn

Bartlett, director of the HTML Writers Guild's Accessible Web

Authoring Resources and Education Center and a Web site

accessibility consultant. "We're not talking about doubling the

cost of your site; we're talking about adding 1 or 2 percent to

its cost and increasing your audience by 20 percent," he says.

Perhaps the real question should be “If the web site uses

many different ways of enabling a disabled user, where does the

accommodation stop? How do designers plan for every

contingency? Whose fault is it when despite reasonable

accommodations, the user’s system uses incompatible software and

who takes the responsibility if the user does not have the

necessary knowledge to make the changes?

In the end, a ruling in the Target case may raise even more

questions than it answers. If an online retailer has a storage

location but no retail outlet, is it subject to the ADA? If the

public does not gain entry to the warehouse, does it still fall

under the definition of a “place of public accommodation?” What

about pod casts and RSS feeds? Are online tutorials subject?

What about online delivery of college courses?

The true test of the Americans with Disabilities Act may be

whether or it applies to the same services, products, and

expectations as those covered in a physical environment. What

a tangled web we weave. . .

 Bibliography

BBC News. “Most Websites Failing Disabled.” Dec. 5, 2006

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6210068.stm> Nov.

16, 2007

Blanck, Peter. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice. 8. 1 (Spring

2004): 1(32). “Justice for all? Stories about Americans

with disabilities and their civil rights." Opposing

Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Metropolitan

Community College. 11 Oct. 2007

<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC

Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=OVRC&docId=A15514

9098&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=omah20254&versi

on=1.0>

Dept of Justice. Americans With Disabilities Act. Section 12182.

Revised in 2004.

<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=4

2&sec=12182> Nov. 9, 2007

Disabilities Rights Advocates. “National Federation of the

Blind v. Target: Legal Precedent Set For Web

Accessibility.” Oct. 2, 2007.

<http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_targe

t.php> Nov. 10, 2007

Heim, Judy. PC World. “Locking Out The Disabled”. Sept. 1,

2000. <http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,17690-

page,1/article.html> Oct. 30, 2007

Rozycki, Carla J. Munger, Darren M. Association Law & Policy.

“National Federation for the Blind v. Target Corp.: Its

Potential Impact on Web Sites and Services.” Nov. 2006

<http://www.jenner.com/files/tbl_s20Publications%5CRelatedDocume

ntsPDFs1252%5C1738%5CNationalFederationfortheBlindTargetCor

p.pdf> Nov. 16, 2007

Thatcher, Jim. Jim Thatcher.com. “Accessibility, Law, and

Target.com.” July 11, 2007. <http://www.jimthatcher.com/law-
target.htm> Nov. 10, 2007.