Comments on: NYC restaurant chain takes down website to avoid accessibility suits

By: cecil

cecil — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 14:17:21 +0000

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?”…

By: bob

bob — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 22:46:25 +0000

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.

By: David C

David C — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 07:17:47 +0000

In reply to John Cunningham.

Fortunately no. Accoring to 28 CFR 36.307,

This part does not require a public accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods that are designed for, or facilitate use by, individuals with disabilities… Examples of accessible or special goods include items such as Brailled versions of books, books on audio cassettes…

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.

By: John Cunningham

John Cunningham — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 03:42:21 +0000

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?

By: cc

cc — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 19:18:37 +0000

Doing the impossible just might be expensive….

By: Michel Alix

Michel Alix — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 16:23:05 +0000

So people with disabilities can now disable anybody they like? (Two wrongs don’t make a right.)