acc_nov1606
  1. AccessibleWeb@U meeting, Thursday, November 16, 2006, Mary Gates Hall Room 015L
    1. Our speaker: Cheryl Angeletti-Harris, Assistant Vice Provost for Equal Opportunity, Equal Opportunity Office, ADA Coordinator
      1. Background as a lawyer
      2. Likes research, putting the pieces of puzzle together
    2. The Target.com case
      1. National Federation of the Blind, et. al. v. Target Corporation
        1. Fact sheet from NFB: http://www.dralegal.org/downloads/cases/target/nfb_v_target_fact_sheet.pdf
        2. Disability Rights Advocates summary: http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php
        3. Suit brought by NFB, NFB of California, and Bruce Sexton (a blind college student)
      2. Target argued complaint should be dismissed
        1. Argued the plaintiff did not state a claim
        2. Argued ADA does not apply to Web sites
        3. Previous court cases had decided that ADA does not apply to Web sites
          1. Southwest Airline case, see http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-962761.html
        4. Same question came up in the Targe.com suit, but this time the judge decided it did apply
          1. Only decided that case should proceed to trial
          2. Both sides will argue on whether Target should be required to make the site accessible
          3. Probably will be a trial by jury
        5. Complaint originally filed in state superior court, Target had it transferred to Federal court
    3. What will be outcome
      1. We are dealing with a Federal District Court in California
      2. If the decision in this case is different between other circuit courts, the case could go up to Supreme Court
      3. 9th Circuit says it is a physical place
      4. The decision could go either way
      5. A primary point of the plaintiffs is that the services and goods that Target.com offers are tied to the actual Target stores. Not having a fully accessible Web site puts the disabled at a significant disadvantage.
      6. Some of depositions could come back to bite them
        1. One deposition said they got on Web site for short period of time, then quit
        2. Another said the person got on Web site a much longer time and did all research before going to store
    4. Huge decision, but still out there as to what the final outcome will be.
      1. Publicity is not good for Target
      2. To fix the site is not really that hard
        1. Clearly have done a lot of work on their site since the lawsuit was filed
          1. Cannot be held against them
          2. The case is about the situation at the time the case was filed
      3. Case is proceeding, they are headed to trial
        1. What is the point of continuing this fight, litigation is not cheap
        2. Target.com is run by Amazon.com
          1. Office Depot site is also done by Amazon.com
          2. Target was a good target to sue because it has a physical site
        3. Target, and its business partners, may want a clear decision
          1. New Web technologies may be harder to make accessible. Being required to keep their sites accessible may constrain their technological flexibility in the future.
      4. If it does go to trial, the decision will affect everyone else because it will lead to a decision.
        1. If Target loses, they will pay the price
          1. Have to pay monetary claims, change Web site - would not be cheap
            1. Every blind person who joins in the class action suit will get part of the settlement
        2. The judge could require them to comply with the 508 Guidelines and W3C guidelines
          1. Would judge allow them to come up with their own guidelines, or will they be directed to comply with existing standard?
            1. Seems likely the judge will direct them to existing guidelines
        3. Litigation can take a while
          1. Case was filed in April, seems to have a great deal of pretrial work already done.
          2. Once discovery period is ended, it will head toward trial
          3. At the end of the discovery period, Target could file a motion for summary judgement, arguing there is nothing to support the case
      5. Under current ADA, if you feel you have been damaged, you can sue
        1. Public access issue
        2. How to measure loss can be complicated
      6. Congress can still go back and change the law
        1. Worst case scenario for Target could be that they would win, there is a big public outcry, and Congress enacts more restrictive legislation
    5. What does this mean for UW?
      1. We can generally assume we are covered by ADA, 508
      2. UW is always open to law suits
        1. Following the guidelines that have been set up protects us
        2. Is not that expensive to make Web sites accessible, so we should just do it
          1. We are presenting ourselves as a welcoming environment, lets go through with that.
      3. Things that are inaccessible are done more out of ignorance
        1. There is some education that needs to be done here
        2. As we move the business of the UW onto the Web and make the university more dependent on the Web, we need to keep things accessible
        3. Much of the Web work is done by persons with limited training. Many sites, including Web applications, are created by students
        4. Staffing is very limited. The responsibility for creating Web sites is often handed to people with limited technical background.
      4. Advisory Committee on Disability Issues brought to attention of President that the UW Home Page is not accessible
        1. Meetings are taking place to develop a more accessible approach
      5. So far, the public groups interested in these topics are willing to go through the UW and work with them to address the issues.
        1. Because we are so big, the UW could come to the attention of some group that wants to make a point.
      6. Ill-considered technology changes could cut some people off from their careers or education
        1. An example is classes that require use of specific technologies, such as Blackboard, that have accessibility problems
        2. UW is moving more and more toward online learning
          1. Potential for disastrous problems if online services are not accessible
        3. New technologies
          1. Are IPods accessible? Not to a blind person. What if IPods are required to participate in a class
      7. Accessibility requirements cannot be cost prohibitive
        1. At the same time, lawsuits will focus on the whole institution, even if the problem is in a single department that happened to have limited resources (what department does not)
      8. We are now in a time when the standards themselves need updating
        1. Developers want to use rich media technologies (AJAX, Flash, etc.) that have matured after the 508 guidelines were created.
        2. W3C guidelines are somewhat newer but can be hard to understand and apply
        3. For now, we want to follow the existing standards, while being creative. We may need to decide on our own how exactly to go about addressing accessibility with these technologies.
        4. Is it possible to make a legal standard that is enforceable
          1. Accessibility is a process, not an end product. It will be impossible to come out with explicit comprehensive rules.
      9. ADA has an "auxiliary aid" clause. Target argued that disabled have the option of calling on phone
        1. Court decided that point was premature. It can be used in the actual trial, but was not sufficent to dismiss the case
      10. What about legacy systems? Do new systems have to be accessible, but we do have time to update older systems?
    6. As ADA Coordinator, this discussion raises interesting issues
      1. Top down decisions will be needed
      2. Bringing all this together into a plan will take work.
      3. We are currently focused on physical buildings in work on accessibility
        1. Buildings have the nice characteristic of once you address an accessibility issue, like ramps or restrooms, it is done. Technology is constantly changing
        2. Not currently focusing on the Web, except when an issue is brought to attention
      4. If the UW believes the future of the UW will rely on the Web, it needs to provide resources so accessibility can be addressed at every level.
      5. UW was a leader in new Web technologies in the past, but is not keeping up now
        1. Need to stop treating the Web as a novelty, a toy, and start seeing it as an esstential tool for conducting higher education.
        2. Changing technology keeps yanking accessibility away - we struggle to re-establish accessibility standards, have some success, but then he next change yanks it away again.
        3. Need to utilize new technologies where they yield real benefit, but watch to be sure we do not compromise our goals and values
      6. Compliance Council reports to the President, made up of all groups that have some component on compliance
        1. Can bring up accessibility of technology as an issue that needs to be addressed.
        2. Having policy is the most explicit, strong method to approach the problem, but not the only method.
        3. Much can be achieved by improving awareness among people developing and maintaining Web sites by learning about accessibility, improving communication among peers, articulating choices, and developing better methods.
Back to Top