in 5 mins late. millions and millions of dollars! (of course vs. tiny amounts to just pay people to do the damn thing.) oh, this is the first session where I’ve seen a ASL translator. asking about sizes of co’s that people work with. I fall in between “small business” and “the size of target.” point the first: lawyers cost more than web folk.
millions and millions of people. both the narrower group of disabilities that actually matter to the internet, and things that aren’t disabilities but mimic them. (lack of speakers.) oh, the complex topic of learning disabilities.
the law. (this is all known stuff for me.) nice list of public accommodations. “Retail services (barbers, banks, lawyer, accountant)” so yes, of course that would be us.
are these ballrooms a wifi dead zone?
access now, inc. vs southwest airlines. “must be a physical, concrete structure.” “nexus” to physical place? aircraft not included in ADA. does not apply; case dismissed. (2002)
national federation of the blind vs target (hrm. slides of bullet points. he’s quite articulate, but dude. still.) (06-01802 MHP; N.D. Ca. 2006 don’t know what those means, but might want for reference later.) “reasonably related to the purpose of the store” not throwing out the lawsuit. “affirmative defense” not cause for throwing out, just a defense at an actual trial.
NFB allegations; Anitra is going to review the actual site. guy who wanted to pre-shop, because it makes it easier, and couldn’t; also couldn’t order online to pick up at store. couldn’t complete checkout by himself. (I wanna see pictures here, or a video or something. are they going to get to that?)
here’s the pictures.
rendon v valleycrest prod. — who wants to be a millionaire case! phone access to game show was a service, game show was a place of accommodation. target argument: “web site isn’t only way to get to store”
ford v schering-plough — employee benefits not a service related to public accommodation
stoutenborough v national football league — live telecast; allegation was connection between service & accommodation, but not owned by the same company.
“the answer is maybe”
if you have a brick & mortar location and a website that covers a [???] related service. meager: amazon, 37signals, et al probably not covered by ADA. why aren’t these disabilities organizations working on lobbying congress to amend the damn law already? for the love of frigging god.
“nexus test” 1) store locator. (happy to have made our gmap w/graceful degradation, although I should probably do additional testing. call that lady that emailed?) 2) ordering online to pick up at the store.
get proactive; be responsive. (YES!) test, involve users, design accessibly from scratch. take feedback seriously, fix quickly, offer equal alternatives. largely in the dark on that last.
schools for the $DISABILITY will usually be happy to take a look at sites in progress, given enough time.
I should really look into adding captions for that silly TV ad and/or transcripts for radio ads. (ugh. I wish I had more access into the banking stuff. but I’m not going to talk about that, except maybe to think about how I can improve the shell.)
“accessibility is cheaper than lawyers” this is an important phase to watch. evolving law, technology, and user expectation.
q: wtf happened to watchfire? recommendations? firefox extension, cynthia says. shawn henry (?) pipes that there’s a list of all the checkers on w3.org/wai and go looking from there.
q: non-profits? if you’re a public accommodation, including social services, then yeah. “profit has nothing to do with it.” does the public use your physical space?
q: if the co doesn’t have the knowledge to understand, can the developer/designer get sued? probably not, unless it’s a big company. the analogue: would an architect get sued? (I find it almost always useful with web stuff to look for the next closest analogue.)