Digital Discrimination

In recent years, the Internet has become a digital commons of commerce and education. However, accessibility standards have often been overlooked online, and the digital equivalents to curb-cuts and other physical accommodations have only rarely been implemented to serve those with print disabilities. (A print disability can be a learning disability, a visual impairment, or a physical disability. Individuals diagnosed with a print disability cannot access print in the standard way).

Most librarians are aware of disability legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). But while this piece of legislation, a civil rights law, has gone far to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities, the extent of web use today had not yet been considered when the ADA was enacted nearly 20 years ago. As such, the ADA does not specifically address the increasingly important sphere of information technology. The ADA requires that places of public accommodation and the services they provide be accessible, but there's no specific reference to the Internet as a place of public accommodation and service for individuals with disabilities. This is where Section 508 of the U.S. Code comes in, and a recent study of how well libraries adhere to the standards it sets shows that they are not yet fully in compliance (see the sidebar on page 28 for the history of Section 508).

To further understand accessibility in higher education and libraries, David Comeaux and Alex Schmetzke of the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point have kept an eye on library and information science (LIS) schools and their library web sites. Their 2006 research provides insight into how accepting these schools and their libraries are of web page standards. The researchers found inroads in web page accessibility among LIS schools and library web sites but also found continued barriers. They looked at 56 American Library Association (ALA)–accredited LIS school web pages and the pages of those schools' libraries, following up on Schmetzke's 2002 investigation of the same sites. The 2006 findings indicate that from 2002 to 2006, percentages of web pages that were accessible went up, and the number of errors per page went down. The average number of hurdles faced by users with disabilities in 2006 was half what it had been four years earlier.

Despite these improvements, however, only 47 percent of LIS schools and 60 percent of their libraries were fully accessible in terms of W3C web accessibility guidelines. Comeaux and Schmetzke suggest that if the more stringent Section 508 standards were taken into consideration, this percentage would be even lower, because many sites do not provide the requisite “skip-navigation” links. Such links allow people who use screen readers or navigate by keyboard only, to navigate web pages more successfully. Without them, the screen reader will go to the top of the page each time a new page loads into the browser, requiring all of the previous content to be read again. This makes it difficult and time-consuming to navigate multilevel sites and get to the main content. In addition, sighted users who do not use a mouse may be required to use dozens of keystrokes to tab through every link in sequence. These links are a level two priority for W3C web accessibility guidelines, which means that providing these links “should” be accomplished, rather than “must be” accomplished. Section 508, on the other hand, promotes “skip navigation” as an important priority.

Unfortunately, the understanding of Section 508 standards is not widespread. Because these standards are not mandatory, well-intentioned novices can create businesses without knowing how to implement accessible web design. Recently, individuals from the Alabama Library Association worked with a contractor to design and construct a new web presence that would meet Section 508 standards. The contractor, who was not familiar with these standards, was referred to online resources for instruction. When the site was finished, a quick check found a few errors, which were easily corrected. With accessibility for all in mind throughout development, the library association was able to create a beautiful, and accessible, web presence, and the contractor gained new skills that could be used on other projects.

Has Section 508 rippled throughout the public and private sectors? Yes and no. The effects of Section 508 have been felt, but the wave has been slow and gentle, barely touching certain areas. Its overall effectiveness has yet to be determined, and there are still many factors preventing total compliance.

Regarding government technology, Paul Jaeger, a staunch advocate of IT accessibility, suggests that some agencies consider Section 508 to be an unfunded mandate. Additionally, the section's requirements have often been misinterpreted. One common impression is that obtaining accessibility requires a costly installation of new assistive technology. However, this is generally untrue since most corrections are easily accomplished. For example, the most often cited error is not providing alternative text for a picture on the web page. Creating descriptive text can be done in very little time. In a class I taught on accessible distance education, participants were able to learn and incorporate this task in less than 15 minutes. And yet, such phantom transition costs have caused both government agencies and other organizations to drag their feet in meeting this mandate. Now, the momentum seems to be shifting.

In the library industry, for example, many online content providers have seen the handwriting on the wall. Providers such as EBSCO, Gale, and Thomson have revised the accessibility statements on their web sites. EBSCO states that its web site has been enhanced to exceed 508 compliance standards and has assured customers that this full compliance will carry over into its new EBSCOhost 2.0 interface. Gale says that it is steadily working toward Section 508 standards, while Thomson indicates that its pages have been reviewed recently and found to meet current Section 508 standards.

Section 508 is clearly impacting businesses in the library and information sphere, but not all sectors are following suit. Large national companies with major online presences fall on both sides of the accessibility divide.

In a June 13, 2001, interview in BusinessWeek, Microsoft mogul Steve Ballmer discussed his commitment to accessibility, claiming he wants to “do the right thing.” That Section 508 affects his largest customer, the federal government, has definitely gotten his attention. Looking down the road, Ballmer envisions an aging baby boom generation that may well face challenges of reduced dexterity, vision, and hearing. So, no doubt, accessibility makes good business sense, too.

Adobe has also been working to provide accessibility features, including a built-in voice synthesizer in its free PDF reader for individuals who benefit from having text read to them.

IBM has also taken up the gauntlet with its Social Accessibility Project. Its web site, at alphaWorks Services, promotes “a service that enables accessibility through collaborative authoring of metadata.” According to an article by Jacqui Cheng for Ars Technica (IBM508.notlong.com), the project's goal is to provide a server where volunteers can create and publish metadata about accessible resources that will then be used to create accessible web pages without altering the original page code. That is certainly progress!

As market pressures align with accessibility goals, more and more software manufacturers are likely to provide accessibility features for all of their products, but others still need more than a gentle prod.

There have been several court cases, such as those involving America Online, Bank of America, and Priceline, provoked by web site inaccessibility. All of these were settled out of court, but Target, one of the nation's largest online retail sites, seems to have something to prove: mainly, that ADA laws shouldn't apply to its Internet presence.

A lawsuit brought by the National Federation of the Blind against Target, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, charged that Target's web site is inaccessible to the blind in violation of the ADA, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. Target filed a motion to dismiss and held that federal and state civil rights laws do not apply to web sites like target.com, but the case proceeded to trial.

On October 2, 2007, a federal district court judge issued two landmark decisions. First, the court certified the Target case as a class action on behalf of blind Internet users throughout the country under the ADA. Second, the court held that web sites such as target.com are required by California law to be accessible. These decisions are considered a tremendous step forward in increasing accessibility requirements for all web sites.

Many who develop web sites are unaware of the simple corrections that would make a web site accessible. Comeaux and Schmetzke's findings concerning the discrepancies in the accessibility of LIS program web sites versus their own library web sites can be explained by library schools perhaps taking advantage of inexperienced graduate students without the know-how to produce accessible web page design, while library sites are built by those with more experience. If institutions take accessibility seriously, their web developers will, too.

Over five years ago, Cheryl Kirkpatrick championed the idea of accessibility when she explained in the January 2003 issue of Computers in Libraries that by complying with Section 508 standards, librarians would be getting the bargain of “two for the price of one: Accessibility and usability.” She pointed out the beauty of these standards is that they offer more uniform, easier-to-navigate web pages that work with both old and new software, small monitors, and slow Internet connections.

The need to make library web pages accessible is finally being taken seriously. Several serious efforts guide the way. The New York Public Library (NYPL), for example, has provided a web site that invites other libraries to “steal” its information and use it as their own. NYPL converts the latest standards and best practices into lessons and examples for other libraries to use. It also offers several free software programs to measure compliance with Section 508 accessibility standards.

Another excellent resource for web accessibility is WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind) created by Utah State University. This site offers the latest, most up-to-date information for those interested in providing accessible web pages and web content.

The practice of using Section 508 standards is slowly but surely being adopted, but there is still much work to be done. Librarians have always stood up for the rights of those who use their services. This is one more arena where librarians can insist on equal access for all—others will follow their example. While Section 508 may not apply in a strict legal sense to your library, compliance is good general policy. The effects of Section 508 are being felt by everyone. Because of this single federal procurement law, the benefits of the Internet may soon be shared equally.