what defines a space?
Oct. 26th, 2006 01:12 pmNational Federation of the Blind sues Target over accessiblity.
shellynoir sent me this article yesterday, and I'm just now looking over it. What's really interesting to me is this paragraph: Last month a federal judge in California allowed the NFB's case to proceed, rejecting Target's argument that its Web site wasn't subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act, a 1990 law that requires retailers and other public places to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Target argued that the law only covered physical spaces.
This has been the single biggest problem with ADA cases regarding websites: that the law as written only covered physical spaces and made no provision for the internet. (Probably because it was written in 1990.) This might make for some interesting legal precedent if the NFB wins its case.
But it does raise an interesting question: why is it considered more acceptable to retrofit a physical environment than a virtual one, when redesigning a website is likely less expensive than redesigning a building to remove access barriers? Is it some kind of backlash from the lawsuit-happy culture? Is it part of the 'subsistence only' problem - as long as you NEED the accommodation for work or to survive, that's okay, but if you just WANT it for leisure or to have fun, or if it would just be CONVENIENT for you, well, too damn bad, suck it up and get some sighty to help you - you may have a right to food and shelter, but not to a Yahoo! account, even though the barriers are easier to remove?
Just thinking out loud, I guess. I'm not saying people are exactly willing to retrofit a physical space - god knows - but most people seem more accepting of 'we need to reconstruct this to put in a ramp and an elevator' than 'we need to redo this website to work with this or that AT program.'
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
This has been the single biggest problem with ADA cases regarding websites: that the law as written only covered physical spaces and made no provision for the internet. (Probably because it was written in 1990.) This might make for some interesting legal precedent if the NFB wins its case.
But it does raise an interesting question: why is it considered more acceptable to retrofit a physical environment than a virtual one, when redesigning a website is likely less expensive than redesigning a building to remove access barriers? Is it some kind of backlash from the lawsuit-happy culture? Is it part of the 'subsistence only' problem - as long as you NEED the accommodation for work or to survive, that's okay, but if you just WANT it for leisure or to have fun, or if it would just be CONVENIENT for you, well, too damn bad, suck it up and get some sighty to help you - you may have a right to food and shelter, but not to a Yahoo! account, even though the barriers are easier to remove?
Just thinking out loud, I guess. I'm not saying people are exactly willing to retrofit a physical space - god knows - but most people seem more accepting of 'we need to reconstruct this to put in a ramp and an elevator' than 'we need to redo this website to work with this or that AT program.'