I’ve warned that it’s going to make sense for many organizations to take down online content or even entire websites rather than spin the wheel on avoiding expensive web-accessibility suits under the ADA, and that the loss of free course content at Berkeley would be only the start. And now recently this from Lisa Fickenscher in the New York Post:
The Riese Organization owns dozens of restaurants in the Big Apple, but you won’t find a single Web site touting its franchises, including Pizza Hut, Nathan’s Famous and TGI Friday’s.
“I took down the Riese Web site after I heard lawyers are suing companies for Americans with Disability Act violations for not providing access for blind and deaf people,” Dennis Riese, CEO of the privately held real estate and restaurant company, told The Post.
6 Comments
So people with disabilities can now disable anybody they like? (Two wrongs don’t make a right.)
Doing the impossible just might be expensive….
The thing I don’t get about the lawyers taking down online courses for access is this: why doesn’t their legal theory apply also to university libraries? Shouldn’t they be closed also?
Fortunately no. Accoring to 28 CFR 36.307,
So the physical libraries seem to be safe for now, if not the digital ones.
… or ARE they? Remember the Cinemark case, where the court apparently rejected the “legal premise that Title III does not require art galleries to provide verbal descriptions of paintings, or concert halls to provide descriptions of the music being played”, and required a cinema to hire a one on one tactile interpreter for a blind/deaf patron, at their own expense? So even if the library doesn’t have to provide a Braille or audio version of a book, perhaps they’d have to provide someone to sit there and read the book to a blind patron – or sign it into the hand of a blind/deaf person. (The requirements can be waived if there is “undue hardship”, so perhaps the library still won’t have to close – but on the other hand, good luck finding out where that line is without a lawsuit.)
I really believe there is a freedom of speech/press issue involved in regulating how websites can show content, though. You are telling certain people that they cannot publish online unless they comply with rules which increase the cost of the publication and may even require certain creative judgements while excluding others. Yes, it’s a content-neutral burden involving a government interest, but it’s still a burden. It’s not “Congress shall make no law, unless they honestly have good reasons and intentions”. If due to this law actual decisions are being made by multiple organizations to take content down, then make no mistake: the freedom *is* being abridged.
It’s actually not content neutral. You are required to make certain color choices under the WCAG guidelines to provide those with color blindness access to the content. Color choice is content choice.
All I can speak to is NC. With that said, readers were provided by the state for college/university/etc. Additionally, there is both recordings for the blind and bookshare which receive funding from DOE to provide books on tape, braille and electronically. Also, there is the National Library Service which provides books in multiple accessible formats, and has since the late 1800’s… Thank you, Library of Congress.
Expensive… Can you say “text”? At least for making it accessible for blind patrons. On the other hand, i’m just looking access, not a payday… The federal government has it’s own problems implementing section 508, even though they’ve had technical requirements for over 16 years. Last year I had six forms that were not fillable by me alone, of that five were brought into compliance. Did I file a lawsuit? Nope, brought it to the attention of the section 508 office, they worked with the content owner to bring it not only into compliance but actual usability as well. The problem is still one of education, or something, since too many times the initial response is still “what?”…