- From: Waddell, Cynthia <cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:36:53 -0700
- To: "'Christopher R. Maden'" <crism@yomu.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Mr. Maden: If I may, I would like to point out an interesting fact that US civil rights law, especially the ADA and the upcoming Section 508, does have a geographical impact on the web even though it is cyberspace. CM:But I feel that there is a fundamental difference between the physical world and the Internet which radically changes the legal game in ways that make the bathroom metaphor break down. For example, the ADA appropriately speaks of "effective communication" rather than the physical, bathroom metaphor you mention, as the means for providing access to the web. CM: For starters, there's the matter of jurisdiction. A building in San Francisco is unquestionably in the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco, the State of California, and the USA. If the building's management finds the ADA onerous, they may complain, they may drag their heels, but they'll have to comply eventually because they can't just move the building management concern out of the affected jurisdiction. But what jurisdiction is, say, canada.com in? The domain is adminstered by Network Solutions, Inc., a US entity, but the contact address for the domain is in Ontario, with network service through AT&T of Canada. If their Web site isn't compliant when a US user tries to use it, who enforces the guidelines? For that matter, whose guidelines are used? Now consider the case of a large company, say Microsoft, who has the facilities to simply move their Web services offshore (say, to HavenCo). Whose jurisdiction are they in then? The ADA is also very clear about jurisdiction. "Effective communication" requirements, such as accessible web design, must be carried out by entities subject to the ADA and the enforcement is not local. Enforcement of the ADA is national and carried out by the designated federal enforcement agencies. Your thoughts on jurisdiction for the building in San Francisco is not quite correct. The building in San Francisco is subject to both local, State and Federal accessibility laws. US civil rights mandates that the most restrictive, or in other words, the most accessible building code elements must be implemented. US companies operating overseas must also adhere to the ADA and the "effective communication" requirement for accessible web design. Although US law does not require non-American businesses overseas to adhere to the ADA, American businesses operating in the US and abroad must adhere to the ADA. From a legal point of view, caselaw is emerging in this area and it will certainly be interesting to watch the development. My view is that while technology changes, civil rights do not. Cyberspace is not exempt from human rights issues. After all, if cyberspace is to continue as a domain for human interaction, why would we not want to encourage full participation for everyone? The W3C WAI effort should be embraced by the global community. Best regards, Cynthia D. Waddell --------------------------------------------------- Cynthia D. Waddell ADA Coordinator City Manager Department City of San Jose, CA USA 801 North First Street, Room 460 San Jose, CA 95110-1704 (408)277-4034 (408)971-0134 TTY (408)277-3885 FAX http://www.icdri.org/cynthia_waddell.htm -----Original Message----- From: Christopher R. Maden [mailto:crism@yomu.com] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 2:07 AM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: RE: WaitingForBob -- Selfish Reason for Accessibility At 07:20 8-06-2000 -0400, Michael Burks wrote: >I have been following this discussion with some amusement and some >consternation. I am wondering if the person who says the force of law will >produce gruding compliance, has ever had find a restroom that could >accomdate their wheelchair? No, I haven't. I assume your point is that it's now fairly easy, at least in public buildings, thanks to the ADA. If not, then I'm not sure I understand. But I feel that there is a fundamental difference between the physical world and the Internet which radically changes the legal game in ways that make the bathroom metaphor break down. For starters, there's the matter of jurisdiction. A building in San Francisco is unquestionably in the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco, the State of California, and the USA. If the building's management finds the ADA onerous, they may complain, they may drag their heels, but they'll have to comply eventually because they can't just move the building management concern out of the affected jurisdiction. But what jurisdiction is, say, canada.com in? The domain is adminstered by Network Solutions, Inc., a US entity, but the contact address for the domain is in Ontario, with network service through AT&T of Canada. If their Web site isn't compliant when a US user tries to use it, who enforces the guidelines? For that matter, whose guidelines are used? Now consider the case of a large company, say Microsoft, who has the facilities to simply move their Web services offshore (say, to HavenCo). Whose jurisdiction are they in then? Then there's the matter of violation detection. In meatspace, there are building codes and regular inspections; the buildings in a city can be enumerated and visited sequentially. Even assuming that the WACG are adopted globally, it's trivial to create a page that passes any computer-driven test of the page without actually being accessible. No government has the resources to monitor the entire Internet manually. So it'll be left to individuals with standing to pursue enforcement, whether by litigation or by pushing for prosecution. In these cases, I can't see how the resources exist to pursue multiple instances of what would likely be lengthy trials if the defendants were stubborn in the slightest. Add to that the fact that many Web sites undergo complete redesigns, starting from scratch, and enforcement becomes next to impossible. Only an organization with a real commitment to accessible content can sustain accessibility through these redesigns. Which brings me to my final point: human nature. People really do not like being told what to do. With a gun pointed at their head (which is what any law not completely irrelevant comes down to), they will do as they are told. But if detection, jurisdiction, and enforcement are that difficult, who holds the gun and where does it point? Making threats which will, in most cases, amount to a bluff, will only irritate content creators. Education will produce content creators that understand the tangible benefits of accessibility; as JM Straczynski wrote, "The universe is composed of matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." I appreciate the work that's going into accessibility education, by the W3C and others. I think that the work on legislation is counterproductive, though, and that adding those energies to the education effort instead would have a greatly increased benefit. One thing that's become clearer and clearer to me is that the curb cut metaphor cuts quite deep; navigational tools for people with limited vision or mobility limitations make for more effective computer use by everyone, and information design theory for people with cognitive challenges creates information more effectively consumed by everyone. This is the message that really needs to get out. -Chris -- Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect Yomu: <URL:http://www.yomu.com/> One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405 San Francisco, CA 94111
Received on Friday, 9 June 2000 12:44:22 UTC