I was absolutely delighted to see an article in Computerworld magazine that discusses the issues of website accessibility. If you’ve read my articles for any length of time, you know that I am an advocate of making technology (including websites) accessible to people with disabilities. I serve on the Board of Advisors of AIR-Houston, the Accessibility Internet Rally for the metropolitan Houston area, and provide consulting services in the area of accessibility.
The Computerworld article “Accessibility Issue Comes to a Head” describes a lawsuit against Target Corporation claiming the retail giant violates the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act. The suit alleges that Target’s website cannot be read by assistive technology, and therefore the service is not available to people who rely on screen readers to “view” websites.
This issue has been tried in court before with mixed results. You see, the ADA clearly covers accessibility requirements for the “built” or physical world, but the law was written before the popularity of the Internet and websites, so the virtual world was not considered at the time. Advocates for the disabled are forcing the issue by filing suits against high profile companies that don’t have accessible websites. Even if the advocates don’t win the lawsuits, the publicity brings the issue in front of the public, creating awareness and stimulating companies to voluntarily create more accessible sites.
Awareness of the issue is clearly needed. A few weeks ago, I exchanged email with a gentleman representing the Association of Support Professionals (ASP). This organization gives awards to organizations that provide good online customer support. I looked at the scoring criteria used to judge the winners of the awards and saw that accessibility was not even considered. Given that people with disabilities are highly likely to use the Internet to obtain technical support or other types of customer service, I suggested to the ASP that the group add accessibility as a criterion for judging the awards. Here is the less-than-professional response I got back:
I’m reasonably familiar with accessibility guidelines, and I know that a few big companies–Microsoft, HP, IBM–have some accessibility tools built into their sites. But I haven’t seen *anything* that relates specifically to tech support content even on these sites. So in terms of our scoring system (which doesn’t use checklists, by the way), accessibility is simply not a meaningful criterion. Yes, I suppose incorporating a question about accessibility would help raise consciousness about this issue. But why this one issue? Why not ask also about whether the entries support public funding for the arts, ending world hunger, reforming the UN, or fighting terrorism? In effect, you’re asking me to turn our awards process into a billboard for one cause you happen to think is important. And I guess I’ll have to disappoint you. Yes, he disappoints me. He disappoints me for trivializing and mocking an issue that will just grow in importance as more people – the aging as well as the disabled — come to depend on accessible and assistive technology. Meanwhile, if you and your company are interested in learning more about how accessible technology can be integrated into your business, visit Microsoft’s website on “Integrating Accessible Technology into Today’s Business—Resources for Business Managers” at https://www.microsoft.com/enable/business/default.aspx. Accessibility is about making computers and technology easier for ALL of us to use. You might as well start planning for it now.
