Hattip to Joe Clark.
The Target v NFB lawsuit seems to be cruising to the netherworld of settlement. Meaning that it will be even longer until there is substantial (or intelligent) legislation or precedent establishing the responsibility of companies in developing an accessible presence online. Who would have thought it would take legal action to make a site easier to use and accessible, thereby increasing the potential reach to customers?
Joe Clark posted extensively about the agreement reach between Amazon.com and the NFB. I can’t begin to recount his excellent survey of the situation, so I’ll only “stand on his shoulders” and deliver some of the highlights.
- The NFB reached an agreement with Amazon.com, as Target uses the Amazon.com engine. The agreement covers third-parties, such as Target.
- Amazon has an Accessibility Committee?
- The agreement is posted as a scanned PDF on the NFB site – Irony abounds . . .
- Apparently, there is a new assistive technology called “screen-access software”. I’ve never heard of it, but apparently this is how a screen-reader is being referred as in the NFB-Amazon agreement.
- Amazon.com promises “full and complete access by the blind”. Is that truly accessible though? What about everyone else that may simply need ZoomText or just larger fonts and not have the code blow up? Why is accessibility only defined by blindness?
- Joe specifically asks whether or not this action will result in the outdated, nested tables, invalid CSS, and abundance of JavaScript will be replaced with valid and semantically correct code that is built using progressive enhancement, or will provide graceful degradation into other devices.
Good questions.
What an amazing opportunity to create a fully CSS compliant site that will be fully accessible and interoperable, regardless of device. I could use Amazon.com on my mobile phone or any other device besides a browser if that were possible. When will these companies realize the business case for accessibility? The more people that can access your site, the more potential customers you will have. Especially as mobile browsing increases, interoperability and degrading gracefully will be critical to success.
Accessibility, in the most liberal definition of the word, is just smart business.
The danger is that Amazon takes quite a narrow view, provided by the NFB, where so long as it works with JAWs it’s ok.
That would not necessarily lead to a CSS / web standards based design (take a quick gander at NFB).
IMHO, Amazon is very sharp on usability for the general populace, but their coding standards are rooted in 1999.
Given the extremely embedded nature of the code they use, and the apparent complexity of their system, I suspect they will apply bandages rather than overhaul the site. This approach would inevitably be audience specific.
Comment by AlastairC — April 25, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Agreed, I can’t see a significant overhaul, especially when there are screen reader users who already use and like Amazon.com, surprising as that is. And, when the definition of accessibilty is limited to JAWS, as this seems to be, it probably won’t amount to much.
Comment by Matt Bailey — April 25, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
On Terminology: the phrase “screen access software” has been used by many in the blindness field for years. It is actually a much better description of the technology used by the blind to access information technology than the phrase “screen reader”. The latter originated with IBM Screen Reader for DOS in 1988, the screen access sofware whose development I led. It did read the screen (screen memory).
Comment by Jim Thatcher — April 26, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Jim, very good to know that - thank you very much for the education and the clarification on the terminology.
Comment by Matt Bailey — April 26, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Hi Matt. You mentioned,
That is exactly what amazon.com/access was designed for (I believe).
And while I’m “here,” contrary to Joe Clark’s opinion, it is proper and sensible that the National Federation of the Blind advocate for access by blind people - that is where their expertise is and where their priorities lie.
Comment by Jim Thatcher — April 27, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Jim, I can even view Amazon.com on a mobile device. It’s tricky, and not fluid by any means, but I see what you mean. Ideally, if sites were built for interoperability, would a seperate mobile site even be necessary?
Obviously, you and Joe Clark have a history and some strong opinions to go along with that. However, I will always side with complete accessibility, and not just accessibility for one group of people. I think what you just advocated in the name of the NFB defeats the purpose of both the term and the concept itself.
Do you remember the criticism Google Accessible Search came under just last year because it was accessibility for blind users? You can’t focus on one group, leave the rest out, and still call it accessible.
Comment by Matt Bailey — April 27, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Although it’s reasonable, I suppose, for the NFB to prioritize access for the blind, it seems more in the spirit of the organization to at least allow for consideration of other disabilities. Granted, the issues experienced by the deaf aren’t the “responsibility” of the NFB — but website accessibility should always be considered to be a wider field than just improving the experiences of the blind.
Comment by Joe Dolson — April 27, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
If you want to go that far, Jim, then neither “screen reader” nor “screen-access software” adequately explains what’s happening when a Web site is read.
Of course it’s fine and dandy for the NFB to stick up for the blind, despite their history of selectively doing so. It just isn’t fine for accessibility advocates to pretend that’s enough.
Comment by Joe Clark — April 28, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Joe, I totally agree with you when you say: “It just isn’t fine for accessibility advocates to pretend that’s [sticking up for the blind, I think] enough.”
But Matt said:
At no time have I said that I advocated just for blind access; I said the NFB did - and should. And by the way, I am not saying that amazon.com/access is good - for anything, especially accessibility. Just that I think the site was designed for mobile devices. I think alternative sites are a bad idea for many reasons.
Comment by Jim Thatcher — April 29, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
I think it is pretty funny that an image-only PDF was used. One thing think about is that there is the NFB, and they have the power to bring Target to court, but what about other disabilities. The only other group I can think about is UCP. So websites are given athumbs up after they pass for blind users, because there is not any major groups that say hey what about us?
Comment by Ryan B — May 11, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
The introduction to WCAG 1.0 also recognizes that making Web content accessible to one
group of users often serves the interest of other users with disabilities. And that is quite
true. Users of screen reading software require both input and output mediums to be made
accessible and this benefits many many users who are not blind.
For many other organizations that need to be forced to incorporate accessibility into their
Web content perhaps meeting the needs of non-visual access is a good first step. Certainly
making content accessible to everyone should be the final goal.
Comment by Sailesh Panchang, Deque Systems — June 11, 2007 @ 10:01 am
A friend of mine got injured and needed to rest his right hand for few months. I bought him a screen reading software and I can tell you he was more than happy…and he is not visually impaired! My point is: those assitive technologies can help everyone …at any time!
Comment by didier_quelle — September 23, 2007 @ 11:47 am