Lord help me blog from day to day
In such a tort defying way
That even when I forget to pray,
My prose will be accessible.

Help me find the pluggins do,
As the legislation doth accrue
I know the things I write for you
Must needs be heard by others

And when the blind can hear my words,
The dumb can comprehend,
May I forget the frown I’ve worn
While thinking still of others.

With apologies to Charles D. Meigs

Whoa dere folks, you have no idea what is galloping up behind us! It’s a corker…

Last month in a little noticed case in the US, a Federal Judge made a ruling that has implications for us all. We may think that the truly sensitive and the terminally offended have been making inroads into the freedom of the Internet, but they are but piffling flea bites compared to the implications of this case.

What the ruling – that the Internet is ‘a place of public accommodation’ – boils down to in plain English is that the Internet has the same status as a Public House, your local council offices, Disneyland, the O2 Arena, and anywhere else you can think of that has to comply with disabled accessibility legislation. It will be your responsibility to ensure that the blind reader has a voice over of your hastily crafted howl of anger at the latest government outrage, that the deaf have suitable sub-titles on your YouTube efforts, and one can only presume, that the terminally stupid have a simplified version in words of one syllable, to ensure that everyone has an ‘enjoyable and enriching experience’ when they land on your blog.

The lawyers are sharpening their quills already, for it matters not that you are penning your anguished prose from a bed sit in Bridlington – your reader may well be a one eyed Albanian asylum seeker in the US, libel law has long since established precedent that if he can access your words in the US, then you are publishing in the US, regardless of where your ‘server’ is.

Could YouTube be obligated to close-caption videos on the site? (This case seems to leave that door open.) Could every website using Flash have to redesign their sites for browsers that read the screen? I’m not creative enough to think of all the implications, but I can assure you that ADA plaintiffs’ lawyers will have a long check list of items worth suing over. Big companies may be able to afford the compliance and litigation costs, but the entry costs for new market participants could easily reach prohibitive levels.

One common argument for imposing accessibility obligations on physical businesses is that it is unrealistic to expect the disabled to simply ‘go somewhere else’ if the nearest business can’t accommodate their needs. The Internet doesn’t have territorial limitations – by extending this ruling to the Internet, the lawyers are in effect saying that everyone must make every part of their ‘public life’ accessible to anyone who wishes, word wide, to partake of the opportunity.

Now I don’t expect this to affect Joe Bloggs blogging from his back room in Bridlington overnight – but it doesn’t require too much imagination to realise that if Google get sued for failing to provide a voice over on their political blogs, they will immediately refuse to host any blog that doesn’t comply. Netfix, the company which the American Association for the Deaf successfully sued for failing to provide sub-titles on the videos which they streamed, may be able to afford the costly technology to comply with this ruling, individual bloggers won’t. Netfix may respond by not hosting movies which don’t carry sub-titles, I would expect Google to take the same route.

Whilst I can just about see why your local bank should pay for the adaptations that allow wheelchair access to the bank, I really cannot understand the logic when applied to the Internet. There are several voice recognition software packages available which could provide an audio translation of any blog – why are the US courts putting the onus on the Internet to solve the problem? Remember, this is just access for the disabled we are talking about here, what happens when Equality legislation uses this ruling as a precedent to ensure equality on the Internet?

Since it is a Saturday and I don’t feel too serious today, let us see where this ruling could take us…

Dick Puddlecote forced to write audio anti-smoking propaganda in case a blind reader wishes to read his blog and not be inconvenienced by having to search for another blog to feed his anti-smoking desires?

Over to you, the competition will be judged one year from today, the winner being the commentator who correctly foretold the ludicrous future….

uk Fred
July 7, 2012 at 23:21

Where’s that fellow who used to post on Guido Fawkes, with the nom de
plume, or was it intention, “Give me 650 lamp posts and a roll of piano wire,
I’ll sort it” when you need him?

Tachybaptus
July 8, 2012 at 00:57

I fear the poor guy is probably in Broadmoor or Rampton now.

There is one application that almost everyone has which will read text
aloud without the need to download any additional software. Weirdly, it is
Microsoft Excel, the spreadsheet that forms part of Microsoft Office. You
just copy and paste text of any reasonable length into one cell, and the
machine voice of ‘Microsoft Anna’ (no relation) will read it out. This page
gives more information:
http://tinyurl.com/bswc356

That is for the recipient to do, of course. At your end, if you have full
control or your site, rather than relying on an automatic blog service,
there is one helpful feature you can add that at least shows you are
willing, and costs nothing, and I use on my own site. This page
https://translate.google.com/manager/
supplies a little
bit of code you can add to the beginning of the HTML text of any page that
adds a little box at the top allowing users to select a language into which
your text will be automatically translated — not well, but at least vaguely
comprehensibly. Not sure how much practical use it is, but it makes you look
wonderfully inclusive.

Ian R Thoepe July
7, 2012 at 19:28

This is the kind of conmtrol nI always feared would come to the internet.
Gordon Brown talked of taking down sites that disagree with government, so has
Barack Obama. And what more sneaky way to do it is there than playing the
“Yooiman Rights” card?

Pompey Cowboy
July 7, 2012 at 20:42

I agree — the internet was set up to be free of all this crap— if you
dont like it, dont come to the party
Yes there may some unpleasent things
on the internet– but thats life– Shit happens
Goverment censorship is the
last thing we need it would be open to every political nutjob with an axe to
grind to tell us what we cant read or see.
The blogosphere challenges
debate— some people cant hack this however and want to censure it to
whatever direction they beleive in

Mudplugger
July 7, 2012 at 21:09

Agreed. Let’s face it, once the Internet escaped from the confines of
the lab, then into pretty much every home/phone in the developed world, it
has scared the ‘authorities’ absolutely shitless.
Despite mostly paying
lip-service to free speech and democracy, they are determined to find ways
to introduce a progressive form of control or face the prospect of
information anarchy, a state where every individual can find out whatever
they want, whenever they want, regardless of whoever would rather they
didn’t.
It is starting under the heading of ‘opt-ins’ for porn (to save
the cheeeldren, you know) and will then be joined by every other excuse or
justification they can muster – the disability angle is a creative one,
but an angle nevertheless, just another step on the process.
It is
incumbent on all of us to use whetever powers we have to resist all these
attempts – if we roll over and let them get away with it, we have lost not
only the game but also the most powerful democratic aid ever known to
mankind. It’s our internet, not theirs – let’s keep it that way.

Elena ‘andcart
July 7, 2012 at 19:07

We need an Underground Internet, NOW, before it’s too late. And then we can
all disappear into the ether, muttering in code.

Ian R Thoepe July 7, 2012 at 19:31

Simples Elena, a host based in Andorra or somewhere where there are few
laws of any kind and a link through a proxy like Anonymouse

It’s sorted.

Elena
‘andcart July 7, 2012 at 21:51

Thank you, Ian R. I’ll go for that. I’ve often fancied being Anonymous,
especially with a name like mine. So class ridden, don’t you think.

drsolly
July 7, 2012 at 18:57

Something I don’t like, is the slight tendency for people who want to say
something, to do it by talking to a camrea, and posting the video. Which means
that I’d have to sit through 15 minutes of blather to some obscure sound track
before I could decide if it’s worth my time. As distinct from writing it down,
which I can decide in 10 seconds if it’s worth reading, and a monute to take
in the whole thing.

I realise that this is a disability of mine, but since all disabilities
must be catered for, these videos should have a complementary text file saying
the same thing.

If that doesn’t work, then how about I find this practice offensive, and
therefore it must cease.

MIM July 7, 2012 at 18:50

I haven’t noticed mandatory subtitles in cinemas yet

Woodsy42 July 7,
2012 at 18:36

And next, musicians will have to make special cds for the deaf….

Pompey Cowboy
July 7, 2012 at 20:05

All ready exist— The are called Motorhead cd’s

MIM July 8, 2012 at 12:51

*like*

drsolly
July 7, 2012 at 17:28

I have a friend who is 100% blind from birth, yet he’s a unix guru. From
him, I understand some of the frustrations.

One of the problems is when web sites use graphics of text, instead of text
(and don’t use the ALT tag so that there’s a text alternative to the graphic).
This one move makes it a *lot* more difficult (or even impossible) for screen
readers to tell a blind person what’s there. Yet is’t extremely easy to fix
(use an Alt tag). It’s even worse when they have a flash intro that can’t be
skipped, must be read, yet can’t be read by the blind.

The main implications of this are for US government agencies – they have to
provide for their web site to be accessable to the blind. That’s been true for
a long time, and my friend works in a US department that helps to make that
happen. And it seems to me, to be a perfectly sensible thing to aim for; if
you need to use a government web site, there’s no competing alternative
site.

I doubt if this ruling applies to the Raccoon Arms.

Anna
Raccoon July 7, 2012 at 17:50

I doubt it applies directly to The Raccoon Arms too – but these things
have a habit of gathering speed – this has opened up a whole new route for
law suits, and whilst I doubt that The Raccoon Arms would be targeted
directly – those relying on, say, Blogger, might find themselves being
forced to accommodate Blogger’s new raft of politically correct rules,
imposed to protect Blogger…..

Bill
Sticker July 7, 2012 at 17:11

I don’t see this ruling lasting long. The onus of accessibility when it
comes to web sites should be on the viewer. The tools and plugins for browsers
are readily available for the less able user. It’s like forcing non-Interweb
authors and publishers to automatically put out large print, braille and audio
books of a given volume, whether there is a market for it or not.

My prediction; first serious challenge will push this weak ruling over a
cliff. It’s unenforceable.

JuliaM July 7,
2012 at 19:16

I plan to ignore it, just like I’m ignoring the cookie ruling…

Bill
Sticker July 9, 2012 at 00:28

Likewise.

Crikey ! July 7, 2012 at 15:14

Bring it on, I say. Let the massed wigs of lawyers try to ‘represent’ their
whining clients in sueing every darned blogger around. There must be upwards
of 100 million by now. We (for it must also cover anyone in eyeshot who
comments, making the millions, billions) will just refuse to pay up. We shall
cock a snoot. Disdain them. Buy a two-finger app. And even add disclaimers to
comments accusing nosey buggers who read them of being snoopers and
evesdroppers. Yea we shall be ‘offended’. We shall claim that our ‘feelings’
have been hurt. To every comment we will add a frowny. Egad, some of us might
even claim we are Aboriginals (well, we in Oz, anyway) and no-one can ever
criticise anything we might say an any form whatsoever.

(This comment is ONLY to be read by people who like what I say here. All
others are infringing my rights to have only those who approve even to notice.
It is NOT for anyone else Non
readers, the deaf and blind, the half-wits and furriners who don’t comprehend
English can sod off.)

Demetrius July 7,
2012 at 14:58

Bridlington? Bridlington? Why not, pray, Filey?

ivan July 7, 2012 at 13:37

With the US wanting its law to apply to the rest of the world, it has been
suggested that we unplug the US from the internet and allow them to do what
they want alone.

As Clarissa says, there are standards but, unfortunately, Microsoft in the
beginning decided they knew better and produced a browser that didn’t use
them. Once the residual messed up sites that accommodated this non standard
are finally cleaned up and everyone embraces the HTML5 standard accessibility
problems should be a mute point. Note I said when.

delcatto July 7, 2012 at 13:28

Will I have to turn my webcam on and sign for the deaf whilst I write my
nonsense?
I can ask a local builder to install a wheelchair ramp up to my
first floor window and my dog can be fitted with a florescent guide vest as
can my cats.Mind you, in this age of minding your PC’s and Q’s I will have to
remove the dog so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of muslim
readers.The cats will have to go because some people will be allergic to
them…. I’ll go and live in a box without t’internet as the obvious
solution.

Jeff Wood July 7, 2012 at 13:13

Next thing, your readers will not be allowed too smoke in here; and if they
vape, a SWAT team will descend…

Mike
July 7, 2012 at 13:09

Back rooms in Bridlington are to be declared areas of National
Unimportance.
Under the provisions of the Areas of National Unimportance
Scheme no smoking, drinking beer from tins or the eating of pot noodles will
be allowed on designated sites.

binao July 7, 2012 at 16:50

Beer is in cans; biscuits, tobacco and toffees are in tins (or used to
be).
I know, I know, but they pay for my pension.

abrupt July 8, 2012 at 07:23

wanna nother tinnie cobber?

Clarissa July 7,
2012 at 12:59

Web accessibility is not a new idea. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
dates back to 1999 and there have been laws in the US, UK (and EU IIRC) about
making websites user friendly for those with physical disabilities for many
years. Making a basic website accessible is not difficult and much of what is
recommended can be done if developers employed that basic web standards which
have been around for years and a healthy dose of common sense.

GildasTheMonk
July 7, 2012 at 13:22

Learned and well infomred as ever Clarissa

Jeremy
Poynton July 7, 2012 at 12:55

Anna,

Having worked on software for the National Library for the Blind for many
years (now subsumed into the RNIB),
I can assure you that there are any
number of packages of screen reading software out there for the
“visually
impaired”, as we must now call folks such as I with the poor
eyesight that comes of ageing, or worse.

Whilst they do depend on the screen being well designed, when this is so,
they work well. JAWS is one such. It does cost a fortune however.

Pompey Cowboy
July 7, 2012 at 20:03

Yeah– I mean I could go and buy the daily paper or a magazine from a shop
and wouldnt expect it to be ” disabled” friendly— Whats the difeerence
between a computer and this— its all just media and information.
Most TV
programmes dont have a deaf signer at the side of them