From my vantage point, to process of becoming accessible isn’t a huge one and doesn’t need to be a revolutionary change. An adjustment in the design and development process, that I presented at ATG’s Insight Live conference this year coined “The Formula for Internet Utopia”, and an additional cost of 5 - 20% on projects (depending on size) will ensure you are meeting ADA requirements and at the very least illustrate a company or organization’s commitment to meeting the needs of their clients with special needs.

This is becoming a large focus within my organization right now and I am personally encouraged to see the US standing up for people that have special needs. This new process for designing and implementing websites is allowing us to provide ADA compliance, SEO and XHTML Mobile at the same time without causing the client to have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on multiple designs, IA and development.

For instance, last week I had a telephone conference with Microsoft and questioned the results of their key 2003 Forester Research study where no respondents were included who did NOT currently use PCs or the Internet. (http://www.microsoft.com/enable/research/phase1.aspx) My contention is that a substantial part of the population (in the millions) do NOT use PCs, smart mobile phones and other tech devices due to “cognitive incompatibility” with their designs. As much as designers study these challenges, if industry can’t envision such devices as assistive technology, then the likihood they might serve in these roles is greatly diminished. It is a MARKETING and PRODUCTS development oversight. I personally feel mandates are not the best solution to innovation and accomodation challenges. The business world enjoys subsidies and tax breaks to spur innovation, and I see that, or the lack of it, as the main issue here - even in the Target case.

In the Target case one must ask, will the outcome spur solutions to resolve the technology challenges at issue, and the answer is probably not any time soon. I would like to see industry and government use more innovative ways to spur advances in accessibility, adoption, and applications - and it won’t come about by burrying one’s head in the sand.

Respectfully,
Stephen Dolle
DOLLE COMMUNICATIONS

A few points:

- When I originally posted my blog entry, the guidelines were not available. Having been involved early on in the process of developing those guidelines, I can assure you they were not NEARLY as extensive then. You are correct - there are a few minor points intended for blind users that have secondary benefits for non-blind users. The only point specific to users without visual disabilities is the “audio description and/or captions”. Notice the “or”?

- I never have indicated that it was my wish that the web be subsumed in ADA. What I and most of the community want is clarification that it does or does not. At least then we can move forward in a productive way one way or the other. I agree that it is MUCH more effective to reauthorize ADA with these changes - something we’re working hard to have happen.

- Regarding the settlement amount, again you totally misinterpret me. I did not state that the amount should be larger because blind people deserve more or even larger because target is rich. I simply state that the amount is not significant enough to any large corporation to instill a sufficient motivation to take this case or accessibility seriously. The mainstream media has echoed this sentiment by not publishing the story. $6M is not enough for anyone to take notice.