Where will this stuff finally end?

[Rich Engelhardt]

Just when you think most of the ridiculous things that could happen have already happened along comes this gem...

Blind Man Sues Playboy Website for Violation of ADA (https://people.com/human-interest/blind-man-sues-playboy-website/).

What's next? Sue Southwest Airlines because they won't let a blind person be a pilot?

Some days - it just simply does not pay to read the news....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Art Mann]

The nation needs some kind of tort reform to stop frivolous lawsuits. I doubt if that will happen though because that is the way a lot of lawyers make a living and the legislatures are primarily composed of lawyers. Where I come from, there are billboards all over the place soliciting people who have been in a wreck to sue the other guy. One guy has the following slogan, "In a wreck and need a check? Call ### ### ####".

[Jim Koepke]

An episode of (at least) one TV crime drama involved a scheme of 'nuisance' law suits. The cases were filed, then the plaintiff would accept the first low ball offer of settlement.

A public transit agency, my former employer, was often said to quickly settle a lot of cases in such a manner.

jtk

[Keith Outten]

I have read the entire ADA specification and I don't recall any section that covers access to digital media. For there to be a violation it seems to me that the ADA would need to be revised first.

[Michael Weber]

What the person wants is for textual contents to be compatible with his screen reading software that converts text to speech or Braille so the blind can utilize the internet. The fact that the articles are in Playboy is immaterial. I understand his frustration being totally dependent on closed captions to make sense of video content of any kind. I hope that he is successful.

[glenn bradley]

The nation needs some kind of tort reform to stop frivolous lawsuits.

If the lawyer who took the case loses, he has to pay what was being sought by the plaintiff . . . to the defendant.

[Bill Dufour]

Maybe he needs to use a different text to speech app. can I sue because many programs do not work on my MAC and are for PC only. How about older programs that do not work on the new improved windows. I bet Lotus works does not work on the latest version of windows nor does MS-dos stuff. My Beta movies do not work on my blu-ray player. Nor do my dads 78's. My edison cylinder records are no longer supported?
What do you mean Morse code is no longer needed to get a radio license. Next thing you know the army signal corps will no longer be training telegraph operators or even how to load a musket.
Bil lD.

[Steve Demuth]

There is no doubt that ADA covers websites. Whether Playboy.com is a public accommodation to which the design guidelines apply is a tougher question, but it's not all that far fetched to imagine it is. If it is, then it would be required to present textual material in a fashion that can be read by screen reading software, to have text captions describing graphics, and to have readable transcripts of audio content, among other things.

Of course it makes a cute joke to belittle a blind man wanting Playboy content, but as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability, I'm not laughing. Even though this particular character and lawsuit looks likelikely to be more gold digging than motivated by real discrimination, it still feels like the laugh would come at the expense of the disabled.

[Rich Engelhardt]

What the person wants is for textual contents to be compatible with his screen reading software that converts text to speech or Braille so the blind can utilize the internet. The fact that the articles are in Playboy is immaterial. I understand his frustration being totally dependent on closed captions to make sense of video content of any kindI see what your saying - but - that brings an even different kind of issue to the table. That of "shock" value. The fact that the content is on Playboy's sin't immaterial in the least. Had the target been something of less "shock value", then the whole case would have just disappeared.


There is no doubt that ADA covers websites. Whether Playboy.com is a public accommodation to which the design guidelines apply is a tougher question, but it's not all that far fetched to imagine it is. If it is, then it would be required to present textual material in a fashion that can be read by screen reading software, to have text captions describing graphics, and to have readable transcripts of audio content, among other things.Ok - say he is successful. What's next? Do we lose a great place to learn and hangout because Keith can't afford to conform to ADA guidelines by implementing conforming software?

[Perry Hilbert Jr]

HMMMMMM> If web sites are "accommodations" then can I sue facebook for discriminating against me for talking about my second amendment rights? Or for shutting down my first amendment rights by making certain subjects forbidden? If the phone company had refused to provide service to certain businesses because of a private censorship policy, do you think the states would have permitted such a thing? Why isn't facebook subject to the same policies? Should craigs list be able to ban listing guns for sale?

[Steve Demuth]

HMMMMMM> If web sites are "accommodations" then can I sue facebook for discriminating against me for talking about my second amendment rights? Or for shutting down my first amendment rights by making certain subjects forbidden? If the phone company had refused to provide service to certain businesses because of a private censorship policy, do you think the states would have permitted such a thing? Why isn't facebook subject to the same policies? Should craigs list be able to ban listing guns for sale?

You can sue Facebook if you want - you just won't get anything other than maybe some publicity out of the effort. (You could also sue Keith for moderating any endorsement or deprecation of specific politicians off this website, with the same result). All businesses that provide a services to the public that meet certain broad definitions of "public accommodation" are required by the ADA to be provide accessible services. There is no comparable law that requires businesses to respect First Amendment rights of its customers or employees. Since the First Amendment only enjoins government from restricting speech, not "the people', you'd have no case. Businesses on the other hand have a case grounded in their First Amendment rights (they are people under current Constitutional doctrine, so they have these rights) that they can control the content that appears on any page they produce.

Business like Facebook also make the case that the are not content publishers, just conduits for what their users publish, so they cannot be held liable or anything "you" say through "their" site. So, they're having their cake and eating it at the same time. There are suggestions in some quarters to regulate big public media properties like Facebook so that this is not the case.

[Jason Roehl]

I have read the entire ADA specification and I don't recall any section that covers access to digital media. For there to be a violation it seems to me that the ADA would need to be revised first.


There is no doubt that ADA covers websites. Whether Playboy.com is a public accommodation to which the design guidelines apply is a tougher question, but it's not all that far fetched to imagine it is. If it is, then it would be required to present textual material in a fashion that can be read by screen reading software, to have text captions describing graphics, and to have readable transcripts of audio content, among other things.

Of course it makes a cute joke to belittle a blind man wanting Playboy content, but as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability, I'm not laughing. Even though this particular character and lawsuit looks likelikely to be more gold digging than motivated by real discrimination, it still feels like the laugh would come at the expense of the disabled.


The Department of Justice (which handles ADA rulemaking and enforcement) has left the internet accessibility question in limbo, but courts are beginning to address it. The most notable case so far is Gil v. Winn-Dixie.

As someone who is in training to be an ADA Coordinator (I just need to take and pass the test--I've been to several multi-day conferences for the required classes), I can say that one thing that has been drummed into us from the beginning is that while accessibility guidelines may be the minimum rules, the GOAL is to increase access (barrier removal), in a reasonable manner, to people with disabilities. So, in light of the DOJ's lack of rulemaking, and the courts' decisions so far, many government and business entities are choosing to apply WCAG 2.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0). There are web tools available that can analyze one's website for accessibility.

[Steve Demuth]

Ok - say he is successful. What's next? Do we lose a great place to learn and hangout because Keith can't afford to conform to ADA guidelines by implementing conforming software?

Potentially, but it'd require a lot of pieces to fall into place.

1. Someone would have to sue him. There is no direct government enforcement of ADA - no ADA police with the power to arrest or fine violators.

2. They would have to make the case that the site is a public accommodation. I don't think that's a slam dunk either way. Better legal minds than mine could enlighten us further.

3. The software Keith uses and the content the site carries would have to fail to work with most or all of the readers/interpreters available to the public. Having it fail for one doesn't make it inaccessible.

Given that the site is simple and mostly text and standard web widgets, I doubt there is a problem. Given that Keith doesn't have millions for a suit to go after, he's probably safe anyway. You can sue for damages and accommodation (fixing of deficits in compliance) under ADA but you can't sue to close a service down directly.

[Frederick Skelly]

There is no doubt that ADA covers websites. Whether Playboy.com is a public accommodation to which the design guidelines apply is a tougher question, but it's not all that far fetched to imagine it is. If it is, then it would be required to present textual material in a fashion that can be read by screen reading software, to have text captions describing graphics, and to have readable transcripts of audio content, among other things.

Of course it makes a cute joke to belittle a blind man wanting Playboy content, but as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability, I'm not laughing. Even though this particular character and lawsuit looks likely to be more gold digging than motivated by real discrimination, it still feels like the laugh would come at the expense of the disabled.

Hi Steve.
There is absolutely nothing funny about people having disabilities. And I can't imagine one much worse than being blind. I do not agree that every imaginable thing someone can touch/use/connect-with has to comply with ADA. IMO, there is a reasonableness factor that should be applied. For example, I have seen perfectly intact sidewalks torn up to add wheelchair ramps, in areas where I have never, ever seen a pedestrian. (Which makes you wonder why there is even a sidewalk there, but that's another story.) I would question why such a sidewalk modification is an appropriate expenditure of public money?

You're obviously more knowledgeable about all this than I am, as a layman. May I ask the nature of the business you're in? You described yourself "as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability." Are you an Attorney who represents disabled clients or a supplier of accomodations, or something else? Edit: I see your bio says hospital CTO but I don't know enough about what that job entails to make a connection to the handicapped and ADA.

Edit #2, for all of us: IIRC, Mr. Hilbert is/was a practicing Attorney, which (if correct) adds an interesting dimension to this discussion.

Take care,
Fred

[Art Mann]

I am worried that the phrase that I have enlarged and made red is likely to be ignored.


The Department of Justice (which handles ADA rulemaking and enforcement) has left the internet accessibility question in limbo, but courts are beginning to address it. The most notable case so far is Gil v. Winn-Dixie.

As someone who is in training to be an ADA Coordinator (I just need to take and pass the test--I've been to several multi-day conferences for the required classes), I can say that one thing that has been drummed into us from the beginning is that while accessibility guidelines may be the minimum rules, the GOAL is to increase access (barrier removal), in a reasonable manner, to people with disabilities. So, in light of the DOJ's lack of rulemaking, and the courts' decisions so far, many government and business entities are choosing to apply WCAG 2.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0). There are web tools available that can analyze one's website for accessibility.

[Brian Elfert]

Hi Steve.
There is absolutely nothing funny about people having disabilities. And I can't imagine one much worse than being blind. I do not agree that every imaginable thing someone can touch/use/connect-with has to comply with ADA. IMO, there is a reasonableness factor that should be applied. For example, I have seen perfectly intact sidewalks torn up to add wheelchair ramps, in areas where I have never, ever seen a pedestrian. (Which makes you wonder why there is even a sidewalk there, but that's another story.) I would question why such a sidewalk modification is an appropriate expenditure of public money?


That sounds like a recent project near my house. The county put in a new traffic light. They also installed an ADA compliant ramp. The thing is the ramp goes nowhere and has no value! The sides of the ramp are surrounded by three foot tall grass. Nobody who needs an ADA ramp is going to be able to use that ramp to go anywhere. Heck, an able bodied person would not be able to go anywhere either.

The traffic light was installed in 2014 and I don't recall ever seeing a pedestrian on that side of the road, disabled or not.

[Steve Demuth]

You're obviously more knowledgeable about all this than I am, as a layman. May I ask the nature of the business you're in? You described yourself "as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability." Are you an Attorney who represents disabled clients or a supplier of accomodations, or something else? Edit: I see your bio says hospital CTO but I don't know enough about what that job entails to make a connection to the handicapped and ADA

Obviously, as a hospital and clinic, we serve disabled people all the time. All of our physical facilities have to be accessible of necessity, as well as by law. But we also operate digital properties - from our public website, to patient portals and mobile apps, to "care plans" delivered as interactive "apps" and remote monitoring of patients, that collectively serve tens of millions of people per year. If you've ever googled a health question, you've almost certainly used our web materials. We consider accessibility in all of these activities. We would consider it a failure of our mission if a blind or deaf person trying to learn about, say, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or to get an appointment with us for the same, was impeded by inaccessible material or tools on our digital properties. That the law also requires them to be accessible helps us understand the best approach, but we would be doing it absent the law.

[Frederick Skelly]

Obviously, as a hospital and clinic, we serve disabled people all the time. All of our physical facilities have to be accessible of necessity, as well as by law. But we also operate digital properties - from our public website, to patient portals and mobile apps, to "care plans" delivered as interactive "apps" and remote monitoring of patients, that collectively serve tens of millions of people per year. If you've ever googled a health question, you've almost certainly used our web materials. We consider accessibility in all of these activities. We would consider it a failure of our mission if a blind or deaf person trying to learn about, say, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or to get an appointment with us for the same, was impeded by inaccessible material or tools on our digital properties. That the law also requires them to be accessible helps us understand the best approach, but we would be doing it absent the law.

Ok. Thanks Steve!

[Jim Becker]

There are Federal regulations around accessibility for electronic resources like web sites that do need to be addressed by certain entities, including the government itself. Citizen-facing resources as well as user interfaces of systems come into play here and products/solutions that fall under those regulations are required to have an associated document that explains what accessibility is supported and for things not in compliance, why and what the mitigation plan might be. I had to deal with this all the time prior to my retirement when responding to my Federal customers' requests for proposals/quotes...and trust me, it was always a moving target! These accommodations generally address things like folks who cannot hear or folks who cannot see, for example.

I suspect it's unlikely that these regulations would apply to "entertainment" resources, however...

[Ole Anderson]

It is my understanding that there attorneys whose sole practice is to find non-ADA compliant public websites and sue them, usually ending up with a 5 figure settlement and the website being taken down until compliant. But a private website like Playboy? That opens up every website including SMC. But, as has been said, you can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean you are in the right and will win.

[Keith Outten]

I cannot find a law that invokes the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The guidelines are referenced as specifications but that does not make them a legal requirement. Has the ADA been revised to include the WCAG?

[Perry Hilbert Jr]

I am aware of the current state of the law. Whether a web site can be a public accommodation erodes away slightly at that law. It may be one of several dozen required to stop the censorship that occurs with some web providers and sites. Ok so I go to Sam's Club and they have a gun case for sale, but I do not know if my gun will fit, so I go on line with the store's wifi to look up the length of my rifle and the Sam's Club wi fi blocks any site that has information about guns. So I go to a German web site and look up the same exact information for the exact same rifle, but instead of being labeled as a rifle or gun, it is a "wiederlader" So when I find that my gun would fit, I reconsider and tell the manager that as long as the store is barring reference information about firearms I can't look up whether my gun will fit the case. I will not be purchasing anything further. My membership expired that day anyway. My family spent about 3 k a year there. Screw them. Face book has had their problems, there just may be more in the future. Phone companies were considered public utilities. Face book could find itself in a similar position.

[Jim Becker]

Keith, I believe that the Section 508 (https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards) accessibility requirements only apply to certain types of online presences, such as Government and other "public" entities, at least in the US.

[Yonak Hawkins]

The solution I like is to allow the plaintiff to receive only actual damages. All punitive damages go to government coffers. After all, it is we, the People, who should be levying punishment on offenders not individuals. Ambulance chasers would be less likely to file frivolous lawsuits if they only get a percentage of actual damages.

[Keith Outten]

Jim, based on your link there is no requirement to invoke an ADA type of system on any private online site. I know that the ADA has not been revised since I left CNU so I still cannot find any legal requirement for Playboy or any other private company to include accessibility for the disabled.

It would seem to me that a legal challenge against Playboy is nothing more than an attempt to force the government to amend the ADA or create a new law for digital media.

[Jim Becker]

The plaintiff could also choose to "read the articles" using text to speech... :) :D

[Bill Dufour]

I remember over 30 years ago a neighbors grandfather went blind before ADA. The city asked where he walked and raised the street signs so he would not hit his head in those areas. They did this from my neighborhood down to the shopping street and the parks where he went.

[Bernie Kopfer]

HMMMMMM>
Should craigs list be able to ban listing guns for sale?

Yes, what a great idea!

[Roger Feeley]

My question would be whether there is a standard reader interface for forums. SMC certainly uses some forum software and that's where a suit should be directed. If, for instance, there are 20 forum software companies and 19 of them support some sort of reader standard, then go after the outlier. Encourage the users of that software to migrate to those vendors that do support the standard.

Full disclosure, I have no first hand knowledge of this. But it seems to me that going after a non-profit such as SMC is a fools game unless there is a ready solution that costs nothing.

[Roger Feeley]

Another thing: Someone might ask why a sight-impaired person would be interested in SMC since woodwork kinda requires sight. When I was in college, I took a tour of the Kansas School for the Blind where they had a very active woodshop. They had kids using the bandsaw. The instructor glued a template on the wood. Then they had a little rod that stuck down just in front of the blade (really close). The kid found that rod with and knew that the blade was right behind. They felt the template and guided the rod. Scared the heck out of me but the kids did it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they don't do that anymore.

[Ken Barney]

I cannot find a law that invokes the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The guidelines are referenced as specifications but that does not make them a legal requirement. Has the ADA been revised to include the WCAG?

Kieth, research "Section 508". Section 508 covers the accessibility of media. Much of my professional work-life has been spent working with the Section 508 accessibility of web-based training--primarily for the government. I only mention this because, in my professional opinion, SMC has very little to worry about when it comes to accessibility.

In fact I'm willing to bet that we have several SMC members/contributors with some level of disability.

-Ken

[Lee DeRaud]

Another thing: Someone might ask why a sight-impaired person would be interested in SMC since woodwork kinda requires sight.You're giving me flashbacks to the time my boss hired a programmer from another department based on a telephone interview. The day before the guy was due to start, a tech from IT showed up to install a Braille terminal. Problem was, the job was development of graphics software to simulate a Navy sonar display console. Oops.