Permanent injunction requiring a change in corporate polices to cause Defendant’s website to become, and remain, accessible Noted was that “The ADA expressly contemplates the type of injunctive relief that the Plaintiffs seek in this action.” The Plaintiff’s lawyers stated that “Because Defendant’s Website has never been accessible and because Defendant does not have, and has never had, a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its Website to become and remain accessible”. Therefor the Court should require that the Plaintiff accept who the Defendant will use to “assist it in improving the accessibility of its Website”, “ensure that all employees involved in website development and content development be given training”, “Consultant to perform an automated accessibility audit on a periodic basis to evaluate if the Defendant’s Website continues to comply”, “Consultant to perform end-user accessibility/usability testing on a periodic basis”, “Consultant to create an accessibility policy”. Although the Lawyers asked the Court for the above, and it would be extremely time consuming and expensive for the Defendant, the very last part of the Complaint was what the Lawyers were after. Here is what the Lawyers asked the Court for:
These impressive statistics show how invaluable a well-designed, modern website truly is. The new website draws in more visitors, encourages them to stay for longer periods of time, view more information, and inspires repeat visits. This steady traffic will help VisionCorps reach more people, and their ADA compliant design will help more people take advantage of their services.
Covered entities are required to provide aids and services unless doing so would result in an “undue burden,” which is defined as significant difficulty or expense. If a particular aid or service would result in an undue burden, the entity must provide another effective aid or service, if possible, that would not result in an undue burden. Determining what constitutes an undue burden will vary from entity to entity and sometimes from one year to the next. The impact of changing economic conditions on the resources available to an entity may also be taken into consideration in making this determination.
more than the list of websites, I appreciate the 10-second method you describe. I think it's worth explaining to developers and site owners that there are indeed some simple tricks to quickly assess a web page without having a deep understanding of the WCAG. Personally, I like removing all the CSS styles (with the Web Developer Toolbar in Firefox, shortcut is Shift+Ctrl+S). If the page is still pretty readable, with no clumsy technical code; if it shows a neat heading structure; if lists appear well structured and appropriately used; if all text, is in black (except links), left-aligned, and with its default font and size; then it's been probably properly coded, HTML-wise.
Most recently, however, pizza chain Domino's has been brought under suit for their website not being accessible for specialty ordering. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case, instead upholding the decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who said the “alleged inaccessibility of Domino’s website and app impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises—which are places of public accommodation.”
I think it's a pretty good sample of doubtlessly accessible websites. Of course they have put a special effort in getting this label, but somehow it shows that it's possible. I also like the fact that they are pretty diverse in their purposes and target audiences, and are not visually different than the usual production. Which confirms our claims that accessible does not mean boring or not visually appealing - at least, if it's the case, then blame the designer, not accessibility!
In recent cases, the U.S. Department of Justice has repeatedly sided with plaintiffs arguing that a private company’s website needs to be accessible, despite any other mitigating factors. One thing is for certain, however: The number of federal lawsuits alleging violations of the ADA is currently accelerating at a rapid pace. Between January and August 2017, there were 432 ADA lawsuits filed in federal court—more than the total number of ADA lawsuits in 2015 and 2016 combined.
Camacho is a blind resident of Brooklyn, NY. He is currently making headline news for taking 50 colleges to court under ADA lawsuits. Camacho filed lawsuits regarding website accessibility for all 50 of the colleges. The plaintiff uses a screen-reader but experienced a barrier when trying to access information. The majority of colleges being taken to court are private, including Cornell and Vanderbilt to name a couple.
Web developers need to keep this in mind when creating websites. The best screen readers use naturalized voices and alter tone and inflection based on HTML tags, so choose layout elements carefully. It is also important to keep in mind that navigation is significantly slower when using a screen reader than it is for sighted people. Sighted people don't have to wait for the reader to get to the link we want- we spot links quickly and are able to navigate to our sought items, often without having to do any reading at all. Minimizing graphics also helps shorten reading times and speed navigation for disabled users.
When you insert an image into a post or page, consider providing a rich description for the caption that will improve the reading experience for everyone, but especially folks who can’t see the image. Be creative. Instead of “My son on his swing,” try “My son is playing on his favorite swing. His face is filled with pure joy on a beautiful Spring day. Perfection.” The goal here is to convey the feeling of the image.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforces regulations covering telecommunication services. Title IV of the ADA covers telephone and television access for people with hearing and speech disabilities. It requires telephone and Internet companies to provide a nationwide system of telecommunications relay services that allow people with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate over the telephone.