AOL Sued For Not Being Accessible: What Does It Really Mean?

On November 4th, 1999, the leader in interactive services America Online, Inc. (AOL), was slapped with a lawsuit by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), a non-profit organization promoting the general welfare of people who are blind. This case has received, and is likely to continue receiving, much media attention. Opinions are abundant; some are even medieval in their attitudes toward people with disabilities. But what is this lawsuit really about? Let's take a few moments to step back and look at the issues involved.

The United States has the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Among other requirements, the ADA requires a public accommodation to be accessible to people with disabilities. According to Title III, a public accommodation is defined as "place of exhibition and entertainment, a place of public gathering, a sales and rental establishment, a service establishment, a place of public display, a place of education, and a place of recreation."

Translation: this means such places as movie theatres, community centres, shopping malls, restaurants, schools and universities must be accessible. Being accessible includes such requirements as wheelchair parking, ramps, wheelchair washrooms, visual fire alarms for those who are hearing impaired, wayfinding aides for people who are visually impaired, and more. These establishments must meet these requirements unless doing so creates an undue hardship.

The NFB is arguing that AOL qualifies as a public accommodation because of its many entertainment, sales, services and other features. This case will test whether or not the ADA applies to virtual spaces, i.e. the Internet.

Why is AOL considered inaccessible? People who are blind use screen readers to interact with computers. Screen readers convert information appearing on computer monitors into synthesized speech or a refreshable Braille display. Although it is readily achievable, AOL's proprietary software does not currently function properly to be compatible with screen readers.

Some people feel that with so many options available for getting online, people who are blind should simply use another option, rather than taking AOL to court. After all, not all bathroom stalls are accessible. True. However, one unique feature of AOL is its thousands of pages of proprietary content - content not available anywhere else on the Internet. Why should people with visual impairments be denied access to this information?

Other enticing attractions of AOL are the "buddy" feature and chat rooms, enabling AOL subscribers to chat with one another while online. By not having access to AOL, people with visual impairments cannot chat with other AOL subscribers who may be friends, colleagues and relatives. Yes, these people could simply switch to a more accessible service. Considering that the NFB alone has over 50,000 members, plus their friends, colleagues and relatives, this could be a considerable number of subscribers switching services. Perhaps this would help AOL to realize the benefits of providing accessible services.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic