Web Compliance

[webcompliance]

Consider Web Accessibility When Choosing Web Developer

Creating web accessibility in your website can be easily achieved by hiring a reputable web developer. You'll experience confidence by knowing that your website will be designed correctly and allow disabled and non-disabled consumers to browse through your webpages, make selections and complete purchases with ease. Why the Right Web Developer is Essential Having a web developer that is experienced and capable of creating a website that is web accessible is vital to your online success. You could potentially face legal problems by not following WCAG 2.0 guidelines or Section 508 compliance; this can lead to unwanted stress and financial woes. The point of running a website is often to create a financial gain through sales of products or services. If your site lacks accessibility, you have the potential of generating less traffic resulting in fewer online sales, put you at risk of a lawsuit and thereby limiting the success of your business. Complications with Inexperienced Web Designers Having an inexperienced web designer can lead to multiple problems that may limit accessibility on your website. 1. Creating Poor Color Schemes 2. Website Mobility Limitations 3. Interface Difficulties Color Schemes are often added to websites for visual enhancements by novice web developers. These sights are often section 508 non-compliant and can lead to avoidance by visually disabled users. Mobility issues are a common problem with disabled users. Developing a website that is web accessible will have multiple command options, users should be able to alter between keyboard and mouse usage. Web designers that have inadequate experience often fail to implement dual options. A Simplistic interface should be designed to improve website interactions with disabled users. New web designers lack the ability that experienced developers have when it comes to addressing web accessibility issues. Do your homework when looking for a web developer and consider using a validation tool to check for coding errors yourself. Check your developers work to ensure your money is well spent and not blindly trusting the coding on your site is properly done.

[webcompliance]

Importance of Skip Navigation

Overview: An important feature when making a website accessible to disabled users is adding skip navigation.  Adding a skip to content link should be included prior to a website’s navigation tools. A single skip to content link is usually adequate for a website. Adding a skip feature allows users needing assistive screen readers to “skip” between headers and sub headers labeled H2, H3, H4. Importance of Skip Navigation Providing navigation links on a website, on the left hand side or atop the page, will benefit the overall usability and give proper assistance to individuals with mobility impairments. The skip feature, for example, will be highly useful for those that have difficulty operating a mouse or using a screen reader. Conclusion: Yet, visually impaired individuals that utilize screen readers may hear all the links at the start of each page, this can be time consuming and cause irritation. It is imperative to add a skip navigation strategy that allows a skip over a block of navigational links for screen readers. It’s important for every website to have a web accessibility strategy. Implementing web accessibility features improve a sites usability and give access to the widest audience possible. Skip navigation is one of the many features that can improve user experience especially for impaired users.

[webcompliance]

5 Reasons for the Developing Number of ADA Lawsuits Over Websites

Within the last a few years there has been a developing number of case suits being filed pertaining to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the inaccessibility of websites. A few recent cases include Miami University, H&R Block and Netflix. Disability advocates and aggressive lawyers searching for sizable settlements are bringing on these web accessibility lawsuits. Accessibility circumstances have formed into not only high priced situations but also, has produced a significant amount of unpleasant media attention. The truth business owners must accept about web accessibility, is understanding it is undoubtedly not going away and there's likely a mounting number of lawsuits about to develop in the upcoming future. Future, accessibility lawsuits will not only affect official or large companies but will potentially impact every business web page on the net. Here are 5 reasons for the Increase in Lawsuits Over Web Accessibility:

Inaccessible websites are uncomplicated for plaintiffs to locate. Impaired internet users or someone utilizing assistive devices has the capability of navigating the web from the comfort of their residence and find inaccessible sites. This mirrors the act of driving by a actual physical store space and identifying there is no handicap parking space present or other essential accessibility features.

Web-page owners and operators do not pay invest enough interest in accessibility. They have dedicated the vast majority of their time into producing websites, which have a high quality physical appearance, and not on providing an equal user access.

The Department of Justice and other plaintiffs have triumphed more often than not in website accessibility lawsuits. Case suits are mounting and will continue until eventually the internet equally accessible to impaired users. 

There's a lack of industry regulations and specifications as well as many misguided website owners that have been mistakenly informed their website is compliant, where it is not.

Many web-page operators don't give American with Disabilities Act the consideration it needs. Business owners haven't realized how dangerous a lawsuit may be nor have owners considered how compliance is far less costly than dealing with the legal situation.

[webcompliance]

Disney Web Accessibility Lawsuit Teaches a Lesson

Early in 2013, an agreement was reached in the accessibility lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks. The lawsuit, Shields vs. Walt Disney Parks, asserted that Disney did not adjust to California and Federal legal guidelines and discriminating against seeing impaired individuals by denying adequate admission to theme parks and the Disney website. The result of the issue demanded in a lengthy list of improvements and payouts that Walt Disney must comply with in a one years time. Today, the one-year mark is quickly approaching and soon Walt Disney’s accessibility will be evaluated. Yet, the bigger question and lesson learned in this case is understanding the weight and significance of having an accessible website. Every website should now assess if their site is accessible, failing to do will eventually lead to legal problems. This article highlights the lawsuit and aims to shed light on the vital importance of web accessibility. In 2010, a trio of blind patrons filed a lawsuit against beloved theme park, declaring the web site was not accessible to them and did not comply with the American with Disabilities Act. The website problems were surrounding the auto play of the audio and video clips. The media clips made it difficult for those using a keyboard to browse the site and made it incompatible with assistive devices, mainly screen readers. The online resources also utilized Flash content material and did not provide alt text for images, further complicated the website for blind users. Alongside the web accessibility charges, came problems with the actual physical park. Statements were made that the theme park did not offer reasonable modifications for individuals with impairments; such as refusing to allow the use of guide dogs, supplying audio assistance, and inability to supply schedules, menus, maps, etc. in Braille. The blind visitors argued that Disney and their websites do give adequate attention to the needs of individuals with visual impairments. Disney denied the accusations and further stated the corporation does not owe individuals with impairments anything, claiming issues around blind visitors should be looked at on a situational basis. The suit continued for multiple years and confronted several due processes, until an agreement was settled on in 2013. A decision was made to separate the suit into four subclasses infrastructure, service animals, communication and website. Each of these national subclasses included an extensive amount of improvements that Disney is obligated to comply to within one year. Walt Disney Parks will likely stick to the deadline and make the appropriate improvements to their websites and theme park locations to accommodate visually impaired consumers and avoid further legal problems. The aim and lesson in this situation, is that every corporation, organization and company should be asking, “Can everyone access our website?” The Walt Disney web accessibility lawsuit sets an example of the growing number of lawsuits against websites. Web pages ought to be accessible to all clients; failure to place accessibility standards can result in a serious lawsuit.

[webcompliance]

HTML Validation

HTML Validation It is far less complicated to design and build a website incorporating accessibility, rather than implementing it once the coding is completed. This does not mean the coding cannot be fixed, but it is certainly something to keep in mind when updating or deciding to get a new website. After a website is completed, new content is added or simply performing routine website maintenance, it pays off to scan a site with an HTML validator. It is the most effective way to make certain critical elements are not overlooked. What to Test For HTML Validation will check for WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), a set of guidelines put together by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium). The aim of the WCAG is to provide a standard for the web in order to generate content that meets the needs of the largest number of individuals internationally. The term content pertains to information such as text, images, sounds and coding that determines presentation. The current acceptable guidelines to meet are the WCAG 2.0. 2.0 is made up of 12 guidelines that are assembled under four concepts: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust.  WCAG 2.0 can be tested with an HTML validator including three levels of testable success criteria, A, AA, AAA. A second area that is vital to test for is Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act requires websites that receive any federal funding to be accessible to individuals with disabilities. There are 16 standards to follow under the Federal Government’s Section 508. Any website receiving money from the government or would like to in the future, should test their site for 508 compliance. Available Tools: There are several HTML validation tools and software available on the internet, at both free and paid options. While free tools are nice to check a single page or area of a website, their testing capabilities will be limited and will only test one page at a time. If you are looking to test an entire website and receive the most accurate assessment, there are excellent tools available at a small cost. It is best to look for a tool that checks for WCAG, Section 508 compliance as well as broken links and coding errors. It is important the tool offer a GUI (Graphic User Interface) report that will display exact location of error visually.

[webcompliance]

Businesses should learn from the Target Accessibility Lawsuit

The 2006 class action lawsuit against Target was a crucial case for web accessibility. Target’s internet site was determined inaccessible to visually impaired users and accessibility lawsuit concluded in 2008 for $6 million. The settlement compelled Target to alter their business's methods and their website is now accessible to blind. Other stores and companies using the internet for business should learn from Target’s misfortune, take web accessibility seriously and immediately take necessary actions to guarantee their web site is accessible. Previously, courts ruled the ADA (American’s with Disabilities Act) only applies to actual physical spaces. The Target lawsuit was the first time a federal district judge deemed the law is applicable to websites if they are a path to a physical locations. Target was believed to posses a connection between their actual physical retail store and online store. The internet retail store was considered by the court as not being equally available to visually impaired individuals. Target was held accountable, forced to apply changes to their website and pay a hefty settlement. Accessibility Lawsuit overview: •    Claims Target’s website was inaccessible to blind users.                      •    Target’s website was allegedly not accessible to those who use assistive technology to navigate the companies website.                                                          •    Blind plaintiffs wanted web accessibility changes that would allow blind patrons to purchase items, use gift cards, Target store locations, and perform other actions available to non-impaired consumers. (Hunton and Williams, Accessibility Lawsuits) Currently, Target is no longer regarded as have an inaccessible website and is now respected for being a gold member certified website of the National Federation for the Blind. Visually impaired patrons can more effectively connect to Target.com and have the opportunity to acquire the same supplies and services as a sighted individuals. There are various explanations for why businesses choose to ignore web accessibility: the company is unaware it is inaccessible, current lack of penalties, or they are not familiar with available validation tools to assess accessibility guidelines. In 2014 the government is planning to update and apply web accessibility guidelines and standards. Business and website owners shouldn't ignore the lessons learned in this case and quickly take a proactive attitude toward website compliance. It is better to be on the right side of accessibility than to be dealing with an accessibility lawsuit.

[webcompliance]

Web Accessibility Lawsuit Against Louisiana Tech

In the summer of 2013, the Justice Department informed that it had came to a settlement in the case against Louisiana Tech University to address statements that the university was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The agreement will mend claims the educational organization did not follow the American with Disabilities Act by using learning tools on the internet that were not accessible for a university student that was visually impaired. The student’s inability to acquire learning materials went well into the school quarter, he became so far behind that he was forced to withdraw. The agreement also mends another area in which the blind pupil was not offered adequate materials for discussions or preparation materials for exams. Beneath the agreement, the university will now enforce several disability policies, including requirements to offer course materials, online resources and learning tools that are usable for disabled individuals, in addition to complying with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG) Level AA specifications. It will also be ensured present websites and all resources created after the year 2010 follow web accessibility guidelines. The agreement also declared the university will educate its professors and faculty members on the ADA requirements. The blind student received a reward for damages collecting a sum of over $20,000.a Modern technology, including online educational tools, are changing the methods individuals attain information, it is essential that people that have disabilities are not discriminated against or excluded from current learning trends, described Eve L. Hill, the Assistant Legal Professional General for Civil Rights Division. Stephanie A. Finley, a lawyer for the Western District of Louisiana further commented that this is an positive development by the university. The moderations show the dedication to creating certainty that each individual, inclusive of individuals with disabilities, will have an equal learning experience at the University. The American with Disabilities Act, in this case beneath Title II, gives safety for the disabled from receiving unequal treatment in programs, services or activities of local government and state establishments. Title II expects that state and government bodies offer the disabled an equal chance to be be a part of or receive the same advantages from services and aids as able bodied individuals. Louisiana Tech University is not the first or only educational establishment that has been a part of web accessibility lawsuits, but what this university has done, is move forward and made the required changes to support the disabled community. The lawsuit against the school showcases how the web does not provide equal access to the disabled users and furthermore, exemplifies the necessity for every learning institution to have usable materials for disabled students in the classroom and online.

[webcompliance]

Significance of Validating a Website

Validation Tools Building and hosting your website does not simply serve the purpose. You must make sure that your website conforms to certain specifications laid down by various organizations. These specifications ensure that your website pages are interpreted in a proper manner by search engines as well as users. There are a number of validation application available online, which can be used to validate your site. Why Validate? Let us have a look in detail, why it’s important to validate a site when a website still looks perfect in a browser. Websites should conform to the specifications mentioned by the organizations such as W3C for the reasons mentioned below. Validation tools are developed to test if your website conforms to these rules. Accessibility: These specifications ensure that your site is not only accessible to normal people but also to the physically disabled. In fact, this requirement is not only served as a moral in many countries but also a legal requirement. Therefore, your website should adhere to the W3C Web Accessibility Guidelines or US Section 508 standards. Search engines: In order to have a site visited more frequently, the website should be properly indexed by search engines. These search engines automatically avoid indexing pages or part of your website if they encounter invalid pages. So it is highly essential for anyone to have their site conformed to these standards for your search engines to properly rank your site. Visitors: Websites are built and hosted with prime objective of getting users to view it. Therefore in order to have increasingly more users visit a site, one must take care to provide relevant information without broken links. Maintenance: These rules can enable a site to be easily maintained and upgraded to fit to the latest trends and developments. CMS and Tools: The content management systems and authorized tools available today enable anyone with little or no technical knowledge to develop and maintain their own websites. But most of the pages developed through this technique fail to obey the above regulations. Hence it becomes inevitably important to validate a website if you are using these techniques. What do the tools actually do? Validation tools are designed to test if a site conforms the aforementioned regulations. They can validate an entire websites code from a missed html tag to spelling mistakes in blogs. A site can be checked by simply entering the site’s page URL. The website can also be validated by uploading r files and directly inputting a chunk of code into a validation tool. The tool can check the HTML, CSS, XHTML, MathML, SMIL etc. of a website. Validator tools do not only validate but also suggest the steps to be taken in order to improve the performance of a website.

[webcompliance]

Blind Student files lawsuit against Miami University

A blind university student, Aleeha Dudley, with the help of the National Federation of the Blind, has filed an accessibility lawsuit against Miami University. Ms. Dudley was a remarkable student enrolled in the zoology program and had thoughts of one day becoming a veterinarian, but her aspirations were crushed when course materials for her program were inaccessible. The accessibility lawsuit declares that the University violated the ADA (American with Disabilities Act) as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by intentionally not providing necessary materials for the impaired student that would ensure she could meet degree requirements. Miami University fell short in delivering supplies, such as college books and course work that were accessible to those with visual impairments. If the university had appropriately supplied the materials, Ms. Dudley could have had the opportunity to maintain her grades and position in her program. Ms. Dudley has fallen behind within the zoology program not as a result of her abilities but, unfortunately, because of the university's inability to provide for its impaired students. The Disability Rights Ohio Advocacy Group and the NFB are representing Aleeha Dudley’s in the accessibility lawsuit. Evidently, Ms. Dudley’s situation is not the first or even the only visually impaired student to be discriminated against at Miami University. Other blind students have found similar frustrations and unnecessary challenges to effectively accesses course supplies and data. A university has a tremendous opportunity to insure a bright future for those with disabilities, but as Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the NFB, said in a statement regarding this circumstance, the university has failed to acknowledge its moral and legal obligations They failed to provide accessible equipment for Ms. Dudley’s education. The NFB is taking a stand and claims they will not allow the inequalities happening to Ms. Dudley and or to other visually impaired students in America. The NFB will fervently pursue this lawsuit and is encouraging other educational facilities and educational institutions to take the necessary measure to ensure accessibility for their students. The university student has described her experience at the institution as being a nightmare. Ms. Dudley is now behind her in her degree and may have no hope of fulfilling her dream of becoming a veterinarian. Ms. Dudley explains her actions in filing the accessibility lawsuit stating she is taking on this case not just for herself, but to help pave the path so that other blind students looking to attend Miami University will not experience the same challenges and anguish she had to endure.

[webcompliance]

Miami University Faces Accessibility Lawsuit

A visually impaired university attendee, Aleeha Dudley, with the help of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), has filed an accessibility lawsuit opposing Miami University. Ms. Dudley was a remarkable pupil enrolled the school’s zoology program and had ideas of one day becoming a veterinarian, but her aspirations were ruined when course work for her program were incomprehensible for her as a blind student. The accessibility lawsuit declares that the University violated the ADA (American with Disabilities Act) in addition to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by intentionally not providing necessary supplies for the impaired attendee that would allow her to meet stage necessary requirements. Miami University fell short in delivering items, such as schoolbooks and course materials that could be used by those with visual impairments. If the university had appropriately offered the supplies, Ms. Dudley could have had the opportunity to maintain her grades and sustain her position in the zoology program. Ms. Dudley has fallen behind within her program, not as a result of her abilities but, alas, because of the university's inability to adapt and supply for their impairment students. The Disability Rights Ohio Advocacy Group and the NFB will be representing the blind student in the accessibility lawsuit. Evidently, Ms. Dudley’s situation is not the first or even the sole visually impaired individual to be discriminated against at Miami University. Other blind students have faced similar discouragements and pointless challenges to efficiently accesses course work and supplies. A university has an incredible chance to insure a brilliant future for those with impairments, but as Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the NFB, said in an announcement regarding this circumstance, the university did not acknowledge its moral and lawful obligations, they failed to supply accessible material for Ms. Dudley’s education. The NFB is taking a stand and claims they will not allow the inequalities happening to Ms. Dudley and or to any other visually impaired students in America. The NFB may fervently pursue this lawsuit and is encouraging other university facilities and educational facilities to take the mandatory measures to ensure accessibility for their students. The university attendee has described her experience at the school as being a nightmare. Ms. Dudley is now behind her in her degree and may have no chance of fulfilling her dream of becoming a veterinarian. Ms. Dudley explains her actions in submitting the accessibility lawsuit stating she is taking this case on not just for herself, but to support a path for other visually impaired students looking to attend Miami University, so they will not have to experience the same dismal challenges and anguish she had to undergo.

[webcompliance]

Netflix Web Accessibility Lawsuit; First Online Company to Face Charges.

The Netflix lawsuit filed in 2010, was a pivotal web accessibility lawsuit. This case was the first time a company that operated solely online was considered a place of public accommodation and required to provide reasonable access for disabled individuals. The lawsuit is clearly shows that the internet is a public space and all it’s information and resources should have reasonable accommodations for disabled users. Now, businesses that operate at physical store locations or online need to be concerned with web accessibility. Netflix, an online video store, has agreed to offer closed captioning for all videos available on their website. The National Association for the Deaf (NAD) filled the class action lawsuit back in 2010, stating that the video site was a public space that was not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The popular video company put a significant amount of effort trying to dismiss the case on the grounds that ADA does not apply to Netflix because it was replaced by new laws from the FCC to provide rules for captioning online. The Netflix argument did not go through when a Massachusetts Federal judge ruled that the FCC was meant to work with ADA laws and not to replace them.  After a two year battle the class action lawsuit ended with the video service making an agreement to add captioning to all of it’s content by 2014, as well as implement other accessibility changes. Netflix has Agreed To:

Adding caption content within 30 days of posting by 2014, by 2015 must be added within 14 days and by 2016 within 7 days.

Netflix offers video service on over 1,000 devices and captioning is available on many of those devices, but not all. In the future Netflix has made a promise to make significant efforts to work on all devices. However they are not required to work on 100% of all devices.

$755,000 was awarded to the plaintiffs’ lawyers and $40,000 to go the official order of implementation over the upcoming 4 years.

[webcompliance]

Structured Negotiations and Website Accessibility

Lawsuits pertaining to web accessibility have currently been in the news, and becoming more relevant to all business owners. Businesses are progressively understanding the risks and danger associated with having an inaccessible website.  Having products, services, and even information that are not accessible to people having impairments can put a business at serious risk for legal action. Many legal proceedings seek substantial payouts for inaccessible websites but, for most accessibility cases making a website usable to individuals with disabilities is more important than receiving a large settlement. To achieve the goal of accessibility some businesses are fortunate to be approached with improving their website through a less damaging approach, through structured negotiations. What are Structured Negotiations? Structured negotiations take a cooperative approach to repair website disputes rather than to seek monetary benefits. This technique allows businesses to avoid legal action, while advocates receive an accessible website. Negotiations are made between the advocate party and company, once an agreement is made, a legally binding contract will be created and signed by both parties. This method is increasingly utilized for advocacy groups with a positive outcome. More websites are becoming accessible and helping to generate awareness for web accessibility. Positive Outcomes for Accessibility Negotiations have provided remarkable positive aspects for the rights of the impaired. Through these types of discussions there are now; audio pedestrian indicators, voice ATMs, and many establishments that supply POS (point of sale) instruments in their stores. Internet accessibility has become a priority for disability advocates. Many modifications have been made for businesses of all sizes to acquire accessibility and have become devoted to preserving an easily accessible website. A few major organizations that have been involved in accessibility negotiations are; CVS, 7-Eleven, Wells Fargo and the non-profit American Cancer Society. The danger of a lawsuit continues to be a serious issue and businesses can face serious penalties for not having an accessible website but, negotiations can provide a more amicable solution. The collective approach can assist to implement necessary improvements that are far less costly than a lawsuit. Businesses ought to be aware of all risks linked to having a website that is not usable to individuals with disabilities. If web accessibility enhancements are implemented now, perhaps businesses can evade ever being approached with a lawsuit or negotiations altogether.

[webcompliance]

Why Educational Institutions Need Web Accessibility

Last summer, the Department of Justice informed that a settlement had been made in the case against Louisiana Tech University to handle claims the university had violated the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The agreement will repair assertions the educational organization did not follow the ADA by using an online learning device that was not available to a student with visual impairments. The student’s lack of ability to gain access to class materials continued until he became so far behind in class work and was forced to make the decision to withdraw from the course. The agreement also repairs another university class, in which the blind pupil was not offered properly accessible materials for course discussions or exam preparations. Within the settlement, Louisiana Tech is now going to embody a range of web accessibility guidelines, such as adding a requirement to offer education materials, online resources and course materials that are accessible as well as adjust to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG) Level AA standards. The college will also be certain current web pages and information generated post 2010 are accessible. The agreement also insisted the school provide instruction to its professors and faculty on the ADA specifications. The blind student in this case was awarded with a sum of over $20,000 in damages. Present day technology, inclusive of web based educational tools, are changing the approach individuals take to attain knowledge, it has to be ensured that people with disabilities are not left in the dark or discriminated against in using these new educational tools, described Eve L. Hill, the Assistant Lawyer General for Civil Rights Division. Stephanie A. Finley, a lawyer for the Western District of Louisiana further expressed that this is a favorable modification by the school. The modifications implicate a desire to make sure that each disabled student has an equal opportunity at Louisiana Tech University. The Americans with Disabilities Act, in this case Title II, protects the disabled from being discriminated in any activity, service or program of state and government establishments, including universities. Title II demands that government and state establishments must offer disabled individuals equal opportunity to retain all advantages from any services or aids offered. Sadly, Louisiana Tech is not the sole academic entity to face a web accessibility lawsuit, but what this school did, was make a positive decision to support change and implement required changes. The lawsuit against Louisiana Tech is yet another illustration of how the world wide web does not provide equality to the disabled as well as represents the necessity for every educational institution to provide easily accessible materials on the web and within the classroom.

[webcompliance]

5 Motives for the Increasing Number of Web Accessibility Lawsuits Pertaining to the ADA

Over the past a number of years there have been a growing amount of class action suits being filed surrounding Americans with Disabilities Act and the inaccessibility of websites. Some recent instances include Miami University, Netflix, and H&R Block. Each of these web accessibility lawsuits are brought on by handicap advocates and powerful attorneys looking for large settlements. Accessibility cases develop into not only a costly situation but also, produces an extensive amount of unpleasant media attention. The difficult truth website owners must accept about web accessibility, is that it is undoubtedly not going away and there is likely a wave of lawsuits about to reveal in the very near future. Accessibility lawsuits will not only impact official or large companies but could prospectively affect every website on the internet. Here are 5 motives for ADA Lawsuits Regarding Web Accessibility: 1.Issues are easy for plaintiffs to locate. Disabled internet users or a person using assistive technology just need to browse online from the comfort of their house to find accessibility issues. This is similar to somebody noticing a physical store space that has no disabled parking space or other observable needed accessibility features. 2. Web-page owners and managers do not pay sufficient attention to accessibility. They have spent most of their time creating websites, which have an excellent physical appearance, and not concentrating on supplying equal user access. 3. The Department of Justice and other plaintiffs have had a significant amount of favorable outcomes with website accessibility lawsuits. Class suits are continuing to surface and steadily proceed until eventually resources and websites online are offered to all consumers. 4. There is a deficiency of industry standards and regulations as well as many misguided web-page owners that believe their website is compliant, when in truth it is not. 5. Majority of internet site owners do not give ADA compliance the attention it needs. Business owners haven't understood the significance of accessibility and how damaging a lawsuit could be, neither have they considered how compliance is far less costly than dealing with the legal actions.

[webcompliance]

Target Accessibility Lawsuit still Valid Today

The 2006 class action accessibility lawsuit against Target market a significant moment in the history of web accessibility. Target’s internet site appeared to be inaccessible to blind clients and concluded in 2008 for $6 million. The settlement forced Target to alter their business methods and subsequently, today, their site is accessible to blind individuals. Other retail shops and companies present on the internet ought to learn from Target’s trial and take the required actions to confirm their site is accessible. In the past courts ruled that ADA only applies to actual physical areas. The Target complaint was the first instance a federal judge ruled that the law could be applied to a website when it is as a gateway to a physical store. Target was believed to experience a nexus, relationship or connection, between their own physical retail store and online store. The internet store was also deemed by the court as not user friendly to visually impaired buyers.  The court ruled Target was had to apply changes to the website and pay millions of dollars. Accessibility Lawsuit Details: •    Complaint filed that Target’s website was not accessible to blind patrons. •    Claims Target’s web page was not accessible to those who use screen readers and other technology use the website. •    Plaintiff requested web accessibility changes to the site that would allow visually impaired individuals to buy products, gift certificates, find store locations, and use other navigation functions available to non-disabled users. (Hunton and Williams, Accessibility Lawsuits) Now, Target is no longer regarded to have an inaccessible website. They put web accessibility changes into action and are currently honored as being a gold member of the National Federation for the Blind. Visually impaired customers can now easily get access to Target.com and have the ability to acquire the same goods and services as full sighted individuals. There are a number of factors establishments choose to ignore web accessibility: the organization is uninformed it is inaccessible, low possibility of facing consequences, or not aware of available compliance testing tools to diagnose accessibility issues. In 2014 the govt. is preparing to update and enforce online accessibility guidelines and standards. Business and internet website owners should not disregard the message learned in the Target accessibility lawsuit and take preventative action to ensure an internet site is compliant. It is far better to implement accessibility to a website than to be confronted with a lawsuit.

[webcompliance]

Disney Web Accessibility Lawsuit Teaches an Important Lesson

Early in 2013, after several years, a settlement was agreed upon in the class action lawsuit against Walt Disney Theme Parks. The case Shields vs. Walt Disney Parks claimed that Walt Disney failed to adhere to California and Federal laws. They did not provide equal service to both theme parks and the Disney internet website for visually impaired consumers. The outcome of the situation resulted in extensive changes and compensations that Walt Disney was to follow up with in 12 month's time. At present, the time has come for the mandatory changes Walt Disney Parks are due. The question to ask not only Walt Disney, but every website owner is, is their website easily accessible? This article focuses on Disney’s accessibility lawsuit, as well as the importance of web accessibility. In 2010 three visually impaired Disney customers filed a complaint against the popular family theme parks, declaring the website denied them proper access and violated ADA legal guidelines. The main concerns regarding the website were surrounding sound and movie clips. The clips would automatically play when visiting the website making it inaccessible for keyboard users or individuals using assistive devices, like screen readers. Disney also used Flash content and supplied no alt text for images, making the page even further inaccessible to blind users. Along with web accessibility lawsuit claims, came problems at the actual location of the theme park. Assertions were made that Disney refused reasonable modifications for disabled consumers. The parks were denying service for patrons with seeing eye dogs, supplying audio options, and failure to supply maps, schedules, menus, etc.in Braille. The blind patrons and the National Federation for the Blind insist that the theme parks and web pages do not consider people with visual  impairments. Walt Disney denied the claims and further declared the company is under no obligation to make special adjustments for visually disabled patrons, claiming situations involving disabilities ought to be taken care of on an individual basis. The case faced several due processes, and went on for multiple years until a settlement was finally reached in early 2013. Disney was held by the court to make changes in four national subclasses website, effective communication, service animals, and infrastructure. Each national subclass had a long list of demands. The corporation is required to adhere by within a year. Disney, being a major corporation, more than likely will meet all the necessary requirements that both the website and the theme park are required to accommodate for blind patrons and avoid further legal hassles. The aim and lesson here is that every corporation, company, and business entity, has to be asking themselves; “Is our website easily accessible?” The web accessibility lawsuit against Walt Disney Theme parks represents a growing trend in lawsuits. Online resources need to be accessible to all consumers. Failure to place accessibility standards could end in an unpleasant lawsuit.

[webcompliance]

Safeway Makes their Website Accessible

Safeway Inc., did what every company that has a website should, they made their e-commerce website usable for visually impaired shoppers. Safeway, like many retail stores, offers their food products as well as a delivery service by means of an online platform. Web Accessibility guidelines and standards are beginning to be enforced and Safeway made a wise business choice to implement changes before it became a problem. Other businesses, no matter their size, should take into account the actions of this major retailer and make their online site or store available to visually impaired users. Safeway has stated, the actual look of the website is exactly the same, but now the site satisfies the W3C (World Wide Web consortium) specifications. The W3C creates guidelines for web accessibility as well as many other areas of the web. W3C guidelines are readily available online for internet site creators and organizations to follow. There are also validation tools that can test a website for areas that do not meet W3C standards. The company claims it will likely continue to improve their website accessibility in the upcoming 12 months to further meet W3C suggestions. Safeway has even gone so far as to have blind shoppers navigate their page to determine the best possible way to improve the site for blind users. Larree Renda, vice president of Safeway Inc., expressed that the choice was an essential for giving buyers who are blind or have visual impairments to have the most positive online shopping encounter possible. The W3C upgrades won’t only aid in a blind users experience, it also will provide assistance to those with other impairments. By implementing web accessibility guidelines, as an example, the audio requirements will likely provide subtitles for customers that are deaf or hard of hearing. It is becoming significantly important for web accessibility to be a priority for businesses as they recognize the benefit in providing an equal experience for all shopper. Shoppers with disabilities really should have the same access to goods and services available on the internet, however the needs of impaired customers are being missed by many businesses. This can be a major mistake for companies that could result in severe legal issues. Safeway Inc. has made a proactive decision and created an accessible website. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the major taxpaying service, H&R Block Inc., who is currently managing a serious lawsuit for denying visually impaired users the ability to access their webpage. Safeway Inc. has set an excellent example that businesses need to follow, to implement website accessibility standards now, before facing legal trouble.