Oct 04 2007
Does The Unruh Act Enact HTML 4.01 Standards For e-Commerce?
The Plaintiff in National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. says so. In its Complaint, at Paragraph 30, it states as follows:
Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a screen reader can speak the alternative text while a sighted user sees the picture. Alt-text does not change the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves over the picture. There are many important pictures on Target.com that lack a text equivalent. The lack of Alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics. (Screen readers detect and vocalize Alt-text to provide a description of the image to a blind computer user.) As a result, blind Target customers are unable to determine what is on the website, browse the site, look for Target locations, investigate Target programs and specials, and/or make any purchases.
(Emphasis added.) There are a number of different standards for drawing web pages on browsers. Starting with HTML 4.01, published on December 24, 1999, the newest standard “required” that all images have an alt-text tag with a description of the image. Actually, HTML 4.01 requires the tag, yes, but it allows that tag to be empty. In other words, the description is not “required” at all.
Furthermore, all modern browsers display a variety of different web page standards, including HTML 4.01, XHTML, and older versions of HTML.
So, this case essentially poses the question: does Title III of the ADA, and, therefore Unruh, require businesses to make some medium previously inaccessible to those with a certain disability accessible to them by using some kind of “best available technology”? (I take that concept from environmental law).
I know a lot about coding websites, and a fair amount about programming in general. I will tell you that if everyone covered by those laws has to go back and implement text friendly versions, the costs will be huge, and maybe not even possible in all circumstances. Still, I wonder what a good solution here is.
This case doesn’t fit well with the general theme of this blog, but I’ll keep an eye on it as a hobby.
