accessibility cases

This page looks at some online accessibility cases.

It covers -

• SOCOG and other Australian cases
• NFB v AOL, Ramada and other US cases

     SOCOG and other Australian cases

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.

Ironically the 2004 Paralympic Games in Athens faced criticism that organisers had not learned the lessons of the 2000 Olympics.

     NFB v AOL, Ramada 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The NFB announced that it had withdrawn litigation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).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.  The decision was subsequently upheld on procedural grounds by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 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.

That did not deter the New York State Attorney-General, who in 2004 announced that hotel operator Ramada and travel company Priceline had agreed to make changes to enable users of assistive technology such as screen readers to more easily navigate their web sites. He had argued that the companies were in violation of the ADA. The companies agreed to undertake remedial action and pay up to US$40,000 to cover the costs of the investigation.

One point of entry to literature about ADA litigation is the 2004 When the Americans with Disabilities Act Goes Online: Application of the ADA to the Internet and the World Wide Web (PDF) by Steven Mendelsohn & Martin Gould.

     jump  to Web Design Guide