For those who may not know (and that's probably most of you), I am totally blind (hence my monicker) and have been this way since birth. Access to some Internet sites can sometimes be difficult, if not impossible, because of graphical "traps" set up by those that founded those sites.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1992 and required U.S. businesses to make public accommodations for the disabled. That law, which was created before websites became the normative form of communication, does not, in fact, mention websites by category; however, courts have, until this point, agreed that websites run by businesses were extensions of those businesses; that is, until today. In a stunning ruling, theEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (serving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida) held in a split 2-1 decision that websites run by public businesses cannot be considered extensions of those businesses under the ADA, since the worldwide web is not mentioned in the law itself.

On the plus side, I do my grocery shopping through Safeway's website (it's not owned by Win-Dixie, the business involved in the complaint) and my state, Arizona, doesn't come under the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. Nevertheless, the decision is still a major blow for those of us who are trying to make websites, especially those websites meant for the general public and operated by private businesses, accessible to the blind and visually impaired.

Below are links to two articles on the subject. The first gives a brief overview of what the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did, and the second, written as both a commentary and an analysis, gives insights into the case upon which this decision is based.

Websites Not Bound by ADA Accessibility Rules, 11th Circuit Finds April 7, 2021
https://www.courthousenews.com/websites-not-bound-by-ada-accessibility-rules-11th-circuit-finds/

11TH CIRCUIT REVERSES WINN-DIXIE– WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU https://convergeaccessibility.com/2021/04/07/11th-circuit-reverses-winn-dixie/

Thank you for posting this, blindguy. I never would have known about it otherwise.

I think the 11th Circuit made the wrong call, and I hope some party of interest kicks it up to the next higher judicial tier (which I think is the U.S. Supreme Court).

At minimum, this is a subject which directly affects the vision-impaired entirety of the nation at large.

It would seem to me that organizations (etc.) which work for rights and access for Americans who are impaired in different ways would have a stake in seeing this ruling overturned.

I hope it will be.

Thank you again for posting this.

I've seen the ADA erode over time as courts go further and further to limit the obligations it imposes. I would have thought the 11th Circuit's decision would be overturned by Scotus almost instantaneously, but the changing character of that court raises real questions.

This is a big deal.

the U.S. Supreme Court could decide not to take the case letting the decision stand.

However, there is one more option that Mr. Gill could take before appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the first article, the decision was made by a panel of three judges on the 11th circuit. If I'm not mistaken, the next step should be for the entire court (all nine judges) to hear the case and see if a different decision, more in line with the other conservative-leaning Appeals courts is reached

Yes, the case could go to the 11th en banc before going to Scotus. If the full 11th affirms the three-judge decision, I'd bet the supremes would take an appeal because there really should be a national standard for a law like this.

Again, I'm not sure the current Scotus would insist on a strict interpretation of the law. They've been tearing up laws right and left lately.

Thank you for posting this information. I have an adult daughter who is deaf after beginning to lose her hearing in her early 20s. Through her we have become aware in ways we would never have known of the difficulties experienced by those with disabilities. Hopefully this law will not gain additional footing in the ever increasing world of cyber communications.

I'm sorry, blindguy. That must be really discouraging. Hopefully it will get kicked up to the SCOTUS, and that court will do the right thing.

This is very disturbing. Websites need to accommodate visual issues. As more and more things move to online companies need to recognize not all users are 100% able bodied.

Bob Dole is doubtless turning over in his grave, as he should be.

Or George Bush senior even.

If Bob Dole is rolling over in his grave, would someone please dig him up and release him?

Bob Dole is still alive at 97.

Old pols don't die, they just fade away?

Here's the ADA compliance website checker ...


https://siteimprove.com/en-us/accessibility/ada-compliance-website-checker/?utm_campaign=us_fy20_ppc_accessibility&utm_medium=ppc&utm_source=google&utm_content=siteimprove-ada-compliance-website&gclid=Cj0KCQjw38-DBhDpARIsADJ3kjmptyg6DkQ0DJVXa9GdK-pRmixrohM-xM16Qf8J-Oeb9peIQbjM8X0aAideEALw_wcB

I just realized that if Judge Branch's ruling is upheld, the consequences for blind and visually impaired people would be much more dire than I initially thought. When I first put up this post, my thought was on blind consumers and our ability to purchase from websites. What I realized this morning was that it would also affect the ability of the blind and visually impaired population to find, or even hold on to, employment. This is because most blind and visually impaired people work using computers at job sites or at their residences to perform the necessary job functions. If the Branch decision is upheld, then the long-term prospects for employment of the blind and visually impaired would be in jeopardy because as websites were updated, many corporations would no longer take their accessibility needs in to account.

Many activists in the blind and visually impaired community cite an unemployment rate of 70% among the working age blind and visually impaired population (a number that comes from a 1996 comprehensive study released by the American Printing House for the Blind or APH). While the true number is not known (there have been no comprehensive studies on the subject since), the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) estimated that unemployment in the blind and visually impaired working age population was somewhere between 60 and 65% in 2012. I would strongly contend that removing access to websites for the blind and visually impaired would drastically increase the percentage of the working age unemployed blind and visually impaired population and all of the consequences that would follow from that.

Yes, it would be dire, blindguy.

You would be a great advocate. You highlight issues that may not be immediately apparent to all and make them easily understandable.

Many of us can tend to take things for granted and not think about how the world is for others.

I have been meaning to ask you about your reader and how it works. For instance, given the importance in some cases of punctuation and images etc, does it include that type of thing for you or just the words? Just the words, I'd guess, and then I'd think that it may be more difficult for you to get the full meaning of some things. Or maybe it's just me, as I notice that sort of thing, being a bit intense about details.

Good luck with this crucial issue you're highlighting. I hope it gets resolved when the deciders stop to consider the full implications of their decisions.