Key ethical issues:
Access for the disabled
The right of access to content
Businesses should aim to ensure that those who need to have access to information can do so, accommodating both their physical abilities and those of the computer equipment they use. In addition, access permitted should be appropriate to the users’ needs.
There is a tendency to assume that the recipient has the same abilities as the sender. In fact, users may have a variety of characteristics that may need to be accommodated:
Physical – impaired vision, for instance, may seriously restrict access to content unless alternative presentations are available.
Software – supplying content in limited format (for example Microsoft Word Documents) disadvantages those who are using some operating systems or software packages.
Device – many users will, at times, want to access information via handheld, mobile systems which have “impoverished” interfaces (small screens, restricted keypads, etc).
The World Wide Web Consortium,1 the organisation charged with producing standards for both web technology and best practice, is developing guidance to promote wide as possible accessibility. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines detail ways of creating web information with regard to users’ abilities. An example guideline reads: “Provide text alternatives to all non-text material”. Automatic content checkers are available that can quickly verify whether web material conforms these standards. Meanwhile, the Consortium’s Device Independence working group is specifying a framework to allow authors to add descriptions to their content which will shape how it will be presented on a range of devices.
The Disability Discrimination Act, fully in force since October 2004, places a duty on organisations to provide equality of access for disabled people. Web based content could fall under the provisions of the act wherever it is used to provide goods, services, staff information (such as on an intranet) or education.
EXAMPLE:
In 1999 the Australian Bruce Maguire lodged a complaint against the Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG). His complaint concerned accessibility of the SOCOG website. Maguire was blind and for him the website was inaccessible. The problem was that the website included images for which there were no textual links that could be read by a screen reader. On 24 August 2000 the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission came out in favour of Maguire and found that SOCOG was in violation of the Australian Disability Discrimination Act. The Commission ordered SOCOG to put access provisions in place by 15 September 2000. When SOCOG failed to put the access provisions in place they were fined A$20,000.2
When the disabled, a significant sector of the public, lack access to information about a business, it is bad for the business. Indeed, the disabled are more likely to seek services on the Web than the able bodied – they are the ones for whom getting out to the shops is most difficult. It clearly doesn’t make sense for a business to allow their services to be inaccessible to those most likely to want those services. The disabled community alone in the UK is estimated to possess a spending power of £33 billion. 3 And according to the DDA Centre, there are approximately 8.6 million disabled people in Britain with an annual spending power of 50 billion pounds a year.4 In other words, making online information accessible to the disabled is both morally desirable and sound business practice. And finally, of course, with the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act, failure to make online information accessible to the disabled is illegal. But the law is only a codification of what is widely seen as morally desirable – it should not be seen as yet another government hurdle placed in the way of business.
Several kinds of disability need to be recognised.
Most obvious are blindness and partial-sightedness. Here technical solutions are available in the form of screen readers, or Braille presentations, but when the standard HTML webpage is supplemented with Flash or Javascript presentations these solutions no longer work. Also, when information is being presented aurally, and there is no corresponding print version, those with hearing impairment are excluded.
Language can also be a problem for those who are not fluent in or familiar with the language of the screen, or they may simply not be able to read very well, through lack of education or cognitive disability.
Screen navigation can be a problem for those with motor disability – some may not be able to use a mouse easily or at all, others may find keyboards difficult or impossible. Websites depending entirely on mouse or on keyboard use will exclude these individuals. Additionally, those with dyslexia can find complex and “busy” websites confusing and unmanageable.
Finally, some may be excluded through lack of current technology – they may have a slow computer, a slow connection, or dated or different software.
Probably the most important aspect of the World Wide Web is that it makes information universally accessible.
The Web is an open standard, with no restrictions on who can post content, or what that content should be about. The Web belongs to everybody, and so it belongs to nobody. The openness and decentralization of the Web is one of its greatest strengths. 5
Recognition that the Web is not fully open unless it is accessible to those with disabilities, including visual, movement and hearing disabilities, gave rise to the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The WAI homepage quotes Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web as saying "The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect."6 The WAI has created guidelines for accessibility known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These guidelines have subsequently been applied to web browsers (such as Internet Explorer, or Netscape) to ensure that the browsers can present Web content in a way that is accessible to those with disabilities. The WAI guidelines have provided the basis for accessibility laws in countries all over the world, including Section 508 of the US Reauthorized Rehabilitation Act, the federal act which requires Websites to be accessible to those with disabilities.
In the UK Website accessibility is required by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the DDA). However the DDA is a civil law. It gives anyone who is considered a disabled person protection from alleged discrimination.7 In other words, the DDA establishes a right which must be claimed. For that reason, the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) was created to help clarify and defend the rights of the disabled. In 2004, the DRC published the results of a formal investigation into possible access discrimination on websites. The DRC investigation found that:
"Most websites (81%) fail to satisfy the most basic Web Accessibility Initiative category. In addition, the results of the evaluations undertaken by disabled users show that they have characteristics that make it very difficult, if not impossible, for people with certain impairments, especially those who are blind, to make use of the services provided. (p. 9)"
The results are published in their 56-page publication, The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People.8 At the time of writing, this is the most current and authoritative guide to the potential violations of the DDA. The fact that the DDA is a civil law, rather than a criminal law, means that the extent of application of the law will only develop as cases arise and are decided. Although there are no cases in the UK, there are a few cases worldwide, including the Maguire case in Australia quoted in the example above.
But what should be recognised is that making websites accessible is not just a matter of following the law, it is also a matter of sound, and ethically right, business practice.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
