Internet Accessibility

Internet Accessibility for People with Perceptual Disabilities

Introduction

We access most of the content on the Internet through web pages. As the Internet has developed, and as bandwidth and web hosting have become less expensive, web sites have become more and more complex. However, not all Canadians participate equally in the Internet. Many web sites are not compatible with tools designed to enable people with perceptual disabilities to surf the net. This FAQ considers the laws and tools that are available to address Internet accessibility in Canada.

FAQ

What tools may people with perceptual disabilities use to access the Internet?

The most common tools for enabling people with disabilities to access the Internet are web browser programs specifically designed to overcome visual perceptual disabilities. These include speech based browsers, browsers with adaptive technologies like enhanced keyboard browsing and magnification, as well as screen readers that translate the output to the screen into either speech or Braille. Screen readers enable use of any mainstream application, not just web browsing. All of these tools function more efficiently when they can easily distinguish between content - which the browser must communicate to the user - and format - which, if communicated, would not be intelligible to the user. Other browsing tools include programs that automatically email the text of webpage by entering the URL, and those that incorporate "image sonification" programs that translate images into repeating soundscapes.

Web accessibility tools for the deaf are not as well developed, as those for the blind. Popular speech to text programs like iCommunicator and Dragon Naturally Speaking function with about 90% accuracy, and those percentages are only when one speaker has trained the device to recognize her speech patterns. The software does not work well with multiple speakers. Accordingly, the software could not reproduce the speech in many audio files with enough accuracy to be useful for users that have difficulty hearing. Thus, for deaf users to have access to be able to access audio content on websites, it is incumbent on website designers or content producers to incorporate their own captioning. W3C (below) recommends using Synchronized Media Integration Language (SMIL) a platform neutral markup language that permits users to cue text, video and audio together in any combination. Quicktime v. 4.1 and RealPalyer 8 both support SMIL, and there is some integration in Internet Explorer 5.5 and later versions.

How are websites designed to facilitate access?

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has established a set of guidelines for making web pages accessible to people with perceptual disabilities. These guidelines make it easier for web accessible tools to extract information from websites. The uniform standard makes it simpler for software designers to create new tools and improve old ones.

W3C guidelines include:

Using the "alt" attribute for describing the function of each visual image.
Ensuring that "image maps" have text equivalents for each "active region, and that functionality can be accessed without a pointing device.
Providing captioning transcripts for audio content and descriptions of video
Using hyper-text links that make sense out of context. Avoid "click here".
Using cascading style sheets (CSS) to organize content where possible, this enables the separation of document structure from document presentation. Using CSS improves accessibility as browsing tool can specify their own presentation.
Using the "longdesc" attribute, long descriptions of images, where short descriptions with an "alt" attribute are insufficient to convey the information. Should be used to convey information from charts and graphs.
Providing alternative content, where it is contained in scripts applets or plug-ins, in case they are not supported.

W3C also provides a prioritized checklist to verify that a site is accessible.

Hermish provides web based tools that determine whether a site meets the W3C guidelines. However, many of the elements need to be verified manually, like the contrast between background and foreground elements.

Does Canadian law require websites to be accessible?

Currently, there are no laws in Canada that explicitly require websites to comply with any set of standards that would make them accessible. Further, there are no license requirements for Websites, Online Service Providers (OSP) or even Internet Service Providers (ISP). However, some statutes impose obligations on the Federal government, federally regulated bodies and provincially regulated bodies, to make their respective websites accessible to people with disabilities.

Is the federal government required to make websites accessible?

The Federal Government of Canada, through the Treasury Board, has implemented Common Look and Feel (CLF) standards for all Government of Canada websites. CLF uses the W3C standards to ensure that GOC sites are accessible to as many users as possible, including those with perceptual disabilities.

How does the Canadian Human Rights apply to websites?

The Act covers departments and agents of the federal government as well as crown corporations. The Act also covers federally regulated organizations, including chartered banks, airlines, television and radio broadcast stations, interprovincial communications and telephone companies, first nations and other federally industries like mining. Thus, the Act can only be applied to the websites of organizations that come within the categories above.

If a site does not meet accessibility requirements, a user might have to file a formal complaint with the Human Rights Commission. To bring a successful complaint under the Act, the complainant must provide sufficient evidence of discrimination on the basis of physical disability that if believed would be sufficient to justify a verdict in her favour. The respondent then has the burden of showing that there was a bona fide justification for the discriminatory standard, including undue financial hardship. See Vlug v. Canada Broadcasting Corporation, [2000] 38 C.H.R.R. 404 for an example. However, it is difficult to foresee how the incorporation of features to facilitate the accessibility of content, or maintaining a plain text parallel site, would significantly increase the cost of website development.

Can provincial Human Rights legislation be applied to websites?

Section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code covers a broad range of individuals and organizations:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability

Nothing in the section prevents its application to websites and cyberspace. Although each province has its own legislation, each covers a similarly broad range of conduct.

What impact could Human Rights legislation have on a website design?

The legislation could theoretically be used to compel website owners to modify their sites to incorporate design features that make them accessible to people with perceptual disabilities. In Brock v. Tarrant Film Factory Ltd, [2000] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 5, the defendant movie theatre was required to make renovations to a maximum cost of $60,000 over three years in order to make the main entrance of the theatre wheelchair accessible. Brock is an important decision because it emphasizes that the ability to access services in the same manner as all other patrons is essential to a person's dignity. A complaint against a website could lead to a court order requiring the site to meet W3C guidelines for accessibility. A Human Rights tribunal could find that a website must be accessible if content may be made available in another more accessible format.

Another difficulty in applying case law that resulted from complaints about physical sites, to websites is determining jurisdiction. With physical sites jurisdiction is determined by the location of the site.

How does a Human Rights Tribunal determine if it has the jurisdiction to hear your complaint?

Human Rights Tribunals determine jurisdiction using the "real and substantial connection" test, in described Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye [1990] 3 SCR 1077 . In Muscutt v. Courcelles [2002] ON CA 10357, Sharpe J.A. listed the factors that courts may consider in undertaking this analysis, though no fixed formula exists. These factors include:

the connection between the forum and the plaintiff's claim;
the connection between the forum and the defendant;
unfairness to the defendant in assuming jurisdiction;
unfairness to the plaintiff in not assuming jurisdiction;
the involvement of other parties to the suit;
the court's willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis;
whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature; and
comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement prevailing elsewhere.

These factors apply to Internet cases. In Bangoura v. The Washington Post, 2005 ON C.A. 10625, these factors were considered in determining whether an Ontario court was the proper forum for a defamation suit. The court gave significant weight to the connection between the forum and the plaintiff's claim. The court found that the claimant had only a minimal connection to the jurisdiction, as he was not a resident of the province when the alleged defamatory articles were published. Another important factor was the court's willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis. The Bangoura decision cautioned other courts against broadly asserting jurisdiction, so they do not expose Ontario publishers and broadcasters to the prospect of facing litigation in any forum in the world.

Can the CRTC compel websites to incorporate accessibility standards?

The CRTC is in a position to mandate accessibility standards because they already function in this capacity for broadcasting and telecommunications. The CRTC requires broadcasters to provide significant portions of their content with closed captioning for the hearing impaired, as a condition of their broadcast license. The CRTC could require Online Service Providers, like web-hosting services, have a license to operate, and the license terms could require them to ensure that all sites they host meet certain accessibility standards. However, in light of the New Media decision in 1999, it is unlikely that the CRTC will move to regulate accessibility.

Are there accessibility requirements in order to register in the dot-ca domain?

The Canadian Internet Registry Authority (CIRA) maintains the registry of dot-ca domain names. Registrants are contractually prohibited from unlawfully discriminating or contributing to unlawful discrimination of any other person, through the use of their domain name. Interpreted broadly, this clause in the Registrant Agreement could require websites registered in the dot-ca domain to meet a specified accessibility standard. Failure to meet that standard would amount to unlawful discrimination, as it would distinguish between individuals on the basis of a physical disability contrary to human rights legislation and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the contractual relationship between CIRA and registrants is private, severely limiting a third party's ability to compel CIRA to enforce a term.

In practical terms, CIRA governs only dot-ca, which is one of hundreds of Country Code top level domains (cc-tld). In addition to cc-tlds, there are still more tlds like dot-com, dot-net and dot-org. If CIRA were to contractually enforce a level of accessibility, the result would likely be that registrants would leave the dot-ca domain in favour of one with fewer restrictions, especially if the costs of transferring were less than the cost of compliance.

Does U.S. law require websites to be accessible?

Since 1999, several lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. under the Americans with Disabilities Act against companies for failing to make their websites accessible to the blind. Some cases were settled when the company (e.g., AOL) agreed to make its online service more accessible. But in 2004, a US Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision stating that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require the Internet to be accessible to people with disabilities. In 2006 however, a California judge in the case of National Federation for the Blind v. Target held that because Target's website is an extension of its other public accommodation, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that it be accessible to people with disabilities. The issue of whether websites without physical counterparts must be accessible under the Act was not addressed. Although this is only a preliminary ruling, it could signal a new trend in US jurisprudence in this area. See the news article.

Resources

Accessibility Guidelines:

Common Look and Feel policy, of the Government of Canada, which includes the W3C web accessibility guidelines.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative.
US federal guidelines for website accessibility, based on the W3C guidelines, but with some differences. The sit includes many resources for users and website designers.

Tools:

List of alternative web browsing tools
Tools for checking the accessibility of a particular website, and other stuff, like making PDF documents accessible.

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)

Current page is 2.6.16: Internet Accessibility