The Americans with Disablilities Act should not apply to web sites. The internet is like any other medium, though it is sometimes considered a public space, it is not. It is selective in its members. It is defined by the nature of visual, audio and text. It is allowed certain liberties because it is so interactive and popular amongst the middle-class and it is rising in necessity. The United States is very contradicting in its policies sometimes… You can rise up from your bootstraps, but not so high that you make the ruling elite feel uncomfortable. Equality for all, except the disable, they get a little extra. In the United States of lawsuits, anything that can be used to an advantage will often be used to such.
This particular digital divide reminds me of a story about a parent who had a gifted talented kid and an autistic kid. The autistic kid was given the power to sue had his needs not being met, which the gifted and talented kid never had so much one-on-one attention as its sibling. What kind of system are we to live in, if this kind of stuff is commonplace? Can’t discrimination be a good thing sometimes?
I do believe that if you are a web site you could, out of the kindness of your electronic heart, allow the same processes be carried out in the analog fashion in the case of disabilities, if that helps bridge the gap of ability for the person and the task, but sometimes web sites are very select. They have carved out a niche for their content and more often then not, it is not the disabled who is first on their audience list.
But, you say that the Internet is like a virtual life? All of the institutions that require public accomodation have counterparts on the Internet? The code reads: (7) Public accommodation. The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commmerce -…a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; (D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering; (E) a bakery, grocery store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; (F) bank, barber shop, beautyhop, travel service, station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;…” etc. It really depends on what’s different about you, as to why these sites don’t work for you, but the in-person establishments already cater to you, why is the Internet something that you need to be concerned with?
The Internet is not so new and yet completely different than the public space. This is paper, this is radio, this is everything before it. It is not a place where you can park in a special space and wheel up to the entrance and push a button and have it open up for you. All the functions require buttons, but by the same token, there are no special spaces, at least not yet. Media has always been selective. Various conditions impressed upon people by special circumstances have always and will continue to be issues. They don’t call it disabled for nothing! That’s harsh, but it’s real. It’s like being left-handed, for pete’s sake! There are more left handed people than there are “disabled” people using the internet, and there have been no catering (or none that I’m aware of) to that demographic. So, now what? If it’s you, it’s going to be everybody.
Another anecdote: On the capitol steps in Olympia, Washington State, there used to be emblems of religious holidays around the time of Christmas. Soon, other religions demanded their represention, and then one year an atheist wants in too… so, instead of allowing all, they allowed none. Sometimes the problem is in the freedom and equality; we forget what’s important.
Aside from your great crime of not properly categorizing your post, holy eugenics Batman! I kid.
It seems reasonable not to expect private enterprises to cater to the needs of say, alcoholics, who now have a disease rather than a problem, but it is also considered a disability for the purposes of SSI I believe. I would say however, that there may be a special case for government websites which I do not see you addressing in particular. Government in theory is paid for by us all and in parts is intended to lift up the masses. Besides which, there are potentially efficiencies to be gained by tossing stuff on the web in braille or text-to-speech over providing one of those folks in black to translate for all of the deaf folks.
Thanks for the input. I had a difficult time emphathizing with the notion of catering to the lowest denominator. It’s like that show, you are the weakest link… congratulations, you’ve won a million dollars sort of thing. I think if I had more personal experience on the other side, the essay might have turned out a little differently.
[…] Katarina – ADA […]
I believe that the Internet is from being like the real world. The line where accommodation and over-accommodation is drawn is very vague. I personally do not agree with all the accommodations, but I don’t make the laws.
the Internet is from being like the real world… I could argue that is confusing in itself, but I would agree that the Internet is a “virtual real world” which really blurs the line of what is real, but who knows where its drawn anyways. Have you seen eXistenZ? It’s like that.
Katrina, I agree that ADA has no useful business being related to web design or the Internet. We should discriminate nonsensical reasoning, and not be afraid to say so, in the face of being considered under sensitive to the needs of the disabled. Laws are meant to be perfected over time to benefit the majority, and it may not serve the needs of a minority of people all the time.