Information re AOL Law Suit
F. Pennell
fpennell at u.washington.edu
Tue Nov 9 10:21:14 PST 1999
I thought some of you might find the following articles re NFB's lawsuit
against AOL to be of interest. These were forwarded from the NFB's Blind
Law Listserve. Francie Pennell
Fwd: Wall St. Journal on AOL lawsuit
Fwd: Washington Post on AOL lawsuit
Fwd: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BLIND SUES AOL OVER LACK OF ACCESS
Fw: First Circuit no accident for NFB suit against AOL
blind access technlogy experts in Michigan
web site of interest
Fwd: Text of AOL Lawsuit
Fwd: The blind sue AOL
Note: This is the NFBnet Blind Law mailing list, in digest format. To
post a message, simply reply to this message or email it to the address
"BlLaw-d at NFBnet.org". To unsubscribe, send a message to the address
"Listserv at NFBnet.org" with the command "UNSUB BLLAW-D" in the message
body. Email David.Andrews at NFBnet.org for more details.
-*-
The Wall Street Journal
>
>
> November 5, 1999 [Tech Center]
>
>Must Web Sites Be Accessible
>To All, Including the Blind?
>
> By NICK WINGFIELD
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
> Do Web sites have a legal obligation to accommodate the disabled, the
> way public malls and buildings do?
>
> In what could be a key test of disability law in cyberspace, the
> National Federation of the Blind has filed a lawsuit against America
> Online Inc., alleging that the online service is violating federal law
> by remaining inaccessible to blind users.
>
> The Baltimore group's complaint charges that AOL's software doesn't
> work with special computer programs that dictate text and otherwise
> help blind users operate applications and Web sites. As a result, the
> world's most popular online service is inaccessible to the 600,000 and
> 800,000 legally blind people in the U.S., according to the National
> Federation of the Blind.
>
> [Go] Join the Discussion: How much should an online service or Web
> site do to accommodate the needs of the disabled? What software or
> services currently available are best at making the Net more useful to
> them?
>
> * * *
>
> [Go] Company Profile: America Online
>
> Nine blind individuals were also named as plaintiffs in the suit,
> filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Boston, which claims that AOL
> isn't complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA. The
> landmark 1990 law compelled public places to install wheelchair ramps,
> Braille signs and other accessibility features for the disabled.
>
> A spokesman for AOL, based in Dulles, Va., says the company was
> "disappointed" with the lawsuit. "We understand the desire of members
> of the blind community to receive full benefits of the Internet," said
> Rich D'Amato, the spokesman. "We are committed to working with blind
> and disabled users until that's achieved."
>
> The suit hinges on a basic question: does AOL represent a "public
> accommodation" under the ADA? The law has traditionally been applied
> to physical places like restaurants, sports arenas and shopping
> centers, not the digital corridors of the Internet.
>
> The disabilities advocates could have a strong case, some legal
> experts say, given the explosion of service online, from grocery
> shopping to stock trading. "I think there can be persuasive arguments
> that can be made" in favor of the plaintiffs, says Gary Phelan, a
> lawyer specializing in ADA cases based in New Haven, Conn. "In some
> ways the Internet is becoming the shopping mall of the 90s."
>
> Others attorneys are more cautious. "Could go either way," says Ruth
> Colker, a professor of law at the Ohio State University College of Law
> in Columbus, noting that courts "haven't been super-generous in
> interpreting" the list of locales covered by the disability law.
>
> Bitter Irony
>
> The suit highlights one of the bitter ironies of the Internet: While
> cyberspace represents a potentially powerful new way for disabled
> people to access information and services without leaving their homes,
> the Net remains a highly visual medium geared towards sighted users.
>
> A number of software makers have attempted to make the Web more
> accessible to blind users through "screen readers," software that
> verbally dictates text on computer screens. In addition, some software
> makers have designed their programs so that they can be easily
> navigated using keyboard shortcuts, eliminating the need to use a
> mouse.
>
> Meanwhile, industry organizations, such as the World Wide Web
> Consortium, have begun promoting accessibility guidelines to Web
> publishers. For example, they are encouraging Web publishers to
> provide textual descriptions of photographs so that screen readers can
> read the material for the blind.
>
> But while disabilities advocates agree that many Web sites have made
> progress, they say AOL still remains largely unavailable to the blind.
> Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind,
> complained the service doesn't work with screen-reader software. "You
> can get at some things on Yahoo, but you can't get anything on AOL" if
> you're blind, says Mr. Mauer, who is himself blind. "You can't even
> sign up with it."
>
> World Wide Web Consortium
> Web Accessibility Home Page
> www.w3.org/WAI/References/ Policy.html#ADA
>
> U.S Department of Justice
> ADA Home Page
> www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm
>
> U.S. Department of Justice
> comments on the Internet
> and the ADA
> www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt
>
> National Federation of the Blind
> www.nfb.org
>
> Technical experts said the AOL service can easily be made accessible
> to the disabled. However, in order for AOL to work with screen-reader
> software, the online provider needs to provide simple technology that
> allows screen-reader makers to hook their software into the service.
>
> Henter-Joyce Inc., a software company in St. Petersburg, Fla., that
> makes a screen reader called JAWS for Windows, says it has programmed
> its application to dictate messages exchanged through AOL Instant
> Messenger, a chatting program made by AOL. Wilson Craig, marketing
> manager at Henter-Joyce, says the company hadn't yet tried to make its
> software work with the full-blown AOL service.
>
> Rather, Mr. Craig says his company has focused its efforts on making
> its screen reader work Web browsers, such as Netscape Communicator and
> Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer. As a small company serving a
> niche market, Henter-Joyce says focusing on Web browsers rather than
> AOL was a better use of its resources.
>
> AOL, meanwhile, says it is eager to make its service more accessible
> to blind users. Mr. D'Amoto, the AOL spokesman, says a new version of
> the service due next year will work with screen readers for the blind
> and provide keyboard shortcuts for blind users. Daniel Goldstein, an
> attorney for the National Federation for the Blind, says he would need
> to see the changes before moving to drop the suit. "This isn't
> something they've communicated to the blind community before today,"
> he says.
>Subject: Washington Post on AOL lawsuit
>
> Blind Group Sues AOL
>
> By Ariana Eunjung Cha
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, November 5, 1999; Page E03
>
> The National Federation of the Blind yesterday filed a lawsuit against
> America Online Inc., contending that the Internet service provider
> discriminates against the blind because its system is incompatible
> with software that helps the visually impaired use computers.
>
> The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, says AOL is
> violating the Americans With Disabilities Act by refusing to modify
> its programming despite several requests over the past year. Most aids
> that translate computer graphics and text into Braille or sounds do
> not work with AOL's current software.
>
> "They say that 'we would really like to help you,' " said Curtis
> Chong, technology director for the federation. But, "in the end, they
> have not fixed the problem."
>
> AOL spokesman Rich D'Amato said company programmers are working on a
> new version of its software, due out next year, that will be
> accessible to the visually impaired. "We are disappointed that they
> have filed their lawsuit," he said.
>
> The screen-access scanners the blind use to "read" graphics depend on
> them to be tagged with words that describe the pictures. Many other
> Internet service providers, including MindSpring and AT&T Corp., use
> such labels, Chong said. But AOL's ubiquitous "You've got mail!"
> thumbnails, advertisements and other icons do not, making it difficult
> for the blind to maneuver through the system and find the information
> they want. The service provider's software also presents a problem
> because it requires customers to use a mouse click, instead of a
> keystroke, to perform some functions.
>
> Chong said his office has fielded about 10 complaints a week for the
> past two years from blind consumers frustrated at not being able to
> hook up to AOL.
>
> Cathy Schroeder, a computer programmer from Reston, attempted to sign
> up with AOL but was thwarted by pop-up boxes of advertisements. The
> boxes commanded her to click on them to continue. Schroeder, who is
> blind, remembers spending several minutes sweeping her mouse around
> and randomly clicking to try to get rid of them: "That's as far I got
> until I threw up my hands and said, 'I can't use this.' I couldn't
> even sign on."
>
> Daniel Goldstein, a Baltimore lawyer representing the federation, said
> the suit is the first to demand that an Internet service accommodate
> blind users. He said the advocacy group singled out AOL because it is
> the world's dominant provider, with 19 million subscribers.
>
> "It's so pervasive," he said, "that the blind feel particularly hurt
> by being shut out by AOL."
>
>
Subject: Fwd: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BLIND SUES AOL OVER LACK OF ACCESS
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BLIND SUES AOL OVER LACK OF ACCESS
>>From Tribune News Services
> November 5, 1999
> The federation charged that AOL, unlike other Internet service providers,
>is incompatible with software programs that convert text to audio or Braille.
> "It's been nine years since the Americans with Disabilities Act was
>enacted. Patience has begun to flag," said Daniel Goldstein, an attorney
>for nine blind members of the Massachusetts chapter of the federation who
>brought the lawsuit.
> The next version of AOL's software, to be introduced in 2000, will include
>features that will make it more user-friendly for blind people, including a
>feature allowing members to get e-mail messages by telephone, said Rich
>D'Amato, a spokesman for AOL.
> The federation argued that the technology already exists to redesign AOL's
>Internet service to permit accessibility by the blind and asked the court
>to order a redesign.
>
>******* You can listen to your pc from a FM radio. *******
>******* check it out *******
>******* at:
>http://www.radiowebcaster.com/cgi-bin/al/affiliates.cgi?10051031 *******
>******* Mickey Quenzer *******
>******* ICQ #: 3927857 *******
>******* Phone: 253-475-3811 *******
>******* Email: mickeyq at home.com *******
>******* Web Site: www.members.home.net/mickeyq/ *******
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 08:47:28 -0600
From: "Lisa LaNell Mauldin" <lisamauldin at earthlink.net>
Subject: Fw: First Circuit no accident for NFB suit against AOL
>From another list...
Regards, Lisa --- The National Federation of the Blind has sued AOL in
federal court in Boston under Title Three claiming that its portal is
largely inaccessible because of its heaviy dependence upon graphics and
icons. Whether AOL is a place of public accommodation, is, of course, the
key legal question. The choice of Boston is no accident; the first
circuit's Carparts decision is the one case to suggest a sufficiently
broad reading of Title Three. Further information can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/cyber/articles/04blind.html
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/11/cyber/articles/04blind.html
Message from: Michael R. Masinter, Nova Southeastern University
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 18:15:36 -0600
From: David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com>
Subject: Fwd: Text of AOL Lawsuit
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
>
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, INC.; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
> BLIND OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; C.A. No. ROBERT BARAN; STEVEN BOOTH;
> DEBRA DELOREY; RICHARD DOWNS; PRISCILLA FERRIS; THERESA JERALDI;
> COMPLAINT AND REQUEST MICHAEL KOSIOR; MARY ANN LAREAU; FOR INJUNCTIVE
> RELIEF and BRANDY ROSE, Plaintiffs,
>
> v.
>
> AMERICA ONLINE, INC., Defendant.
>
> COMPLAINT
>
> Plaintiffs, the National Federation of the Blind, Inc. ("NFB"), the
> National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts, Inc. ("NFB-MA"),
> Robert Baran, Steven Booth, Debra Delorey, Richard Downs, Priscilla
> Ferris, Michael Kosior, Theresa Jeraldi, Mary Ann Lareau, and Brandy
> Rose, by their undersigned counsel, complain against America Online,
> Inc. ("AOL") as follows:
>
> NATURE OF THE CASE
>
> 1. Plaintiffs, blind advocacy organizations and several blind persons
> who wish to purchase and use Defendant's services, bring this action
> for injunctive and declaratory relief to require Defendant, the
> country's largest internet service provider, to bring its America
> Online internet service (the "AOL service") into compliance with the
> Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. The
> individual Plaintiffs and members of the organizational Plaintiffs are
> blind, and therefore can only independently use computers, including
> internet services, by concurrently running screen access software
> programs for the blind that convert visual information into
> synthesized speech or braille. However, Defendant AOL has particularly
> designed its AOL service so that it is incompatible with screen access
> software programs for the blind. Despite its self-description as "the
> world's leader in interactive services, Web brands, Internet
> technologies, and electronic commerce services," AOL, in designing its
> AOL service, has failed to remove communications barriers presented by
> its designs thus denying the blind independent access to this service,
> in violation of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq.
>
> JURISDICTION AND VENUE
>
> 2. This action is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. 12188.
> This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
> 1331.
>
> 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), in
> that the Defendant, a corporation, is subject to personal jurisdiction
> in this District and in that a substantial part of the events giving
> rise to this action occurred and continue to occur in this District.
>
> THE PARTIES
>
> 4. The National Federation of the Blind, the leading national
> organization of blind persons, is a not-for-profit corporation duly
> organized under the laws of the District of Columbia with its
> principal place of business in Baltimore, Maryland. It has affiliates
> in all 50 states, including Massachusetts. The vast majority of the
> Federation's approximately 50,000 members are blind and are therefore
> individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
> 12102(2). The Federation is widely recognized by the public, the
> Congress, executive agencies of government, and the courts as a
> collective and representative voice on behalf of blind Americans and
> their families. The purpose of the NFB is to promote the general
> welfare of the blind by (1) assisting the blind in their efforts to
> integrate themselves into society on terms of equality and (2)
> removing barriers and changing social attitudes, stereotypes and
> mistaken beliefs held by sighted and blind persons concerning the
> limitations created by blindness that result in the denial of
> opportunity to blind persons in virtually every sphere of life,
> including education, employment, family and community life,
> transportation and recreation. The NFB and many of its members have
> long been actively involved in promoting adaptive technology for the
> blind, so that blind persons can live and work independently in
> today's technology-dependent world. The NFB runs the International
> Braille and Technology Center for the Blind in Baltimore, Maryland.
> This Center is the world's most extensive demonstration and evaluation
> center for computer-related technology serving the needs of blind
> persons, housing more than two million dollars worth of hardware and
> software designed specifically for the blind. Thousands of blind
> persons come to the Center each year for training in the use of
> adaptive equipment and software.
>
> 5. Plaintiff NFB-Massachusetts, the Massachusetts state affiliate of
> the NFB, is a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws
> of Massachusetts with its principal place of business in
> Massachusetts. The NFB-Massachusetts currently has seven local
> chapters and approximately 250 members, all of whom are residents of
> Massachusetts and many of whom are individuals with disabilities as
> defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2).
>
> 6. The plaintiff, Robert Baran, a blind resident of Chicopee,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2). Mr. Baran is an adaptive technology
> specialist at Holyoke Community College, who works with blind and
> disabled students and is also a graduate student at the University of
> Massachusetts at Amherst. Mr. Baran has computers on which he has
> installed screen access software and on which he utilizes e-mail and
> the internet. He has been repeatedly advised that the AOL service is
> inaccessible to blind people. He would like to be able to use the AOL
> service for its "buddy" feature and chat rooms.
>
> 7. The plaintiff, Steven Booth, a blind resident of Salem,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). Mr. Booth is the Assistant Operations
> Manager at the National Braille Press and utilizes e-mail and the
> internet at home and at the office. If the AOL service were accessible
> to blind people, he would use it at home for surfing the web and for
> its various custom features, such as chat rooms and the "buddy"
> feature.
>
> 8. The plaintiff, Debra Delorey, a blind resident of Holbrook,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). A recent college graduate who is
> currently applying to graduate school, Ms. Delorey received free AOL
> service with the computer she purchased with her scholarship money.
> Although she had purchased a combined screen enlarger/screen access
> program with a voice synthesizer, she was unable to use the AOL
> service because of her blindness. Her attempts to resolve the
> difficulties by calling the help line for the AOL service were
> unavailing and she gave it up. Ms. Delorey would subscribe to the AOL
> service if it were accessible for research over the internet and for
> e-mail.
>
> 9. The plaintiff, Richard Downs, a blind resident of Stoughton,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). Mr. Downs has a home computer with a
> screen reader and voice synthesizer that he uses to access his
> computer. Four months ago, he was solicited by AOL to subscribe to its
> AOL service and advised AOL that he would like to subscribe, but that
> because of his blindness he cannot access its service. He was urged to
> subscribe anyway, because, he was told, AOL will eventually have a
> blind-accessible text screen alternative. Mr. Downs would like to
> subscribe to the AOL service because he believes that it provides
> access to a great number of web sites, would give him greater
> independence from the person whom he employs as a reader and would
> allow him to surf for electronics that assist the blind and to follow
> the activities of the National Federation of the Blind. 10. The
> plaintiff, Priscilla Ferris, a blind resident of Somerset,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). She is the President of the NFB of
> Massachusetts, works as a consultant, and volunteers for the Girl
> Scouts. Her two daughters are AOL subscribers and two of her four
> grandchildren use the AOL service. She has a home computer with a
> screen access program and would like to be able to use the "buddy"
> feature of the AOL service with her family, visit chat rooms and,
> among other uses, employ it to get information from the District
> Councils and National Office of the Girl Scouts. She also is
> interested in being able to activate child safety features to block
> inappropriate content from her home computer, so that her
> grandchildren could surf the web for educational purposes without
> being exposed to inappropriate content. This is particularly important
> to her as a blind grandparent, as she cannot simply look over the
> shoulders of her grandchildren to monitor their internet use in her
> home.
>
> 11. The plaintiff, Theresa Jeraldi, a blind resident of Watertown,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). She is a retired employee of the
> Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education
> and has a computer with a voice activated screen reader, internet
> service and the capability of surfing the web through Internet
> Explorer. Nonetheless, she would subscribe to AOL's service if it were
> accessible, because she has many sighted relatives, including her
> grandchildren, who have the AOL service, and she could then utilize
> AOL's "buddy" feature to chat with them when they are on-line.
>
> 12. The plaintiff, Michael Kosior, a blind resident of Allston,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). Mr. Kosior is a computer systems
> engineer for a $700 million direct marketing agency in Boston. He has
> a Bachelor of Science degree in computer information systems from
> Bryant College and worked as a computer programmer for the United
> States Navy while he was in high school. Mr. Kosior is an experienced
> user of the internet and communicates frequently by email. He utilizes
> several screen access programs for the blind, including DECtalk
> Express External Synthesizer and Henter-Joyce's Jaws for Windows Build
> 3.31. Mr. Kosior has made several attempts to utilize the AOL service
> without success. With the assistance of a sighted person he was able
> to label some of the graphics with the Jaws graphic labeler, but not
> enough to make the AOL service accessible. Mr. Kosior understands that
> AOL is easy for sighted people to use and is interested in evaluating
> whether the AOL service, once it is accessible to the blind, is
> superior to other internet access platforms that he currently uses.
>
> 13. The plaintiff, Mary Ann Lareau, a blind resident of Waltham,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). As the Secretary of NFB-MA, it is her
> responsibility to handle all of the e-mail to the state affiliate; in
> connection with the lobbying and other work that she does for the
> affiliate, she has a constant need to surf the web for relevant
> information. While she currently uses another, accessible, internet
> service provider, she would like to subscribe to the AOL service,
> because of the additional features that it provides.
>
> 14. The plaintiff, Brandy Rose, a blind resident of Taunton,
> Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
> ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). Ms. Rose has a home computer with
> screen reader software installed. Through another, accessible,
> internet service provider, she currently has e-mail. Ms. Rose,
> however, is aware that AOL advertises that its service has many
> features not available from other companies offering similar services
> and would, if it were accessible, subscribe to the AOL service for use
> in connection with her college classes and to chat with her sighted
> friends who subscribe to AOL's services, through use of the services
> "buddy" feature..
>
> 15. Defendant AOL is a for-profit corporation duly organized under the
> laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Dulles,
> Virginia. It describes itself as "the world's leader in interactive
> services, Web brands, Internet technologies, and electronic commerce
> services," having revenues in excess of 4.7 billion dollars and total
> assets in excess of 5.3 billion dollars in fiscal year 1999.
>
> 16. AOL's main internet service, the AOL service, has approximately
> 17.6 million customers ("members") worldwide. AOL purposely avails
> itself of, and persistently directs its commercial activities to,
> residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and has many members
> in Massachusetts from whom it derives substantial revenue.
>
> 17. The AOL service includes, by way of illustration and not by way of
> limitation, the following: simple access to the world wide web with
> search functionality; an "online interactive community" through
> electronic mail services, alerts when fellow members are on-line (the
> "buddy list"), public bulletin boards, public and private interactive
> conversations ("chat rooms"), guest interviews at live "auditorium"
> events; nineteen "channels" providing informational content and
> commerce and community opportunities pertaining to news, sports,
> games, finance, shopping, health, travel, kids, and the like; as well
> as personalization and control features that permit AOL members to,
> for example, automatically update their stock portfolios and block
> their children's access to inappropriate web sites.
>
> 18. On information and belief, the AOL service has achieved over 1.14
> million simultaneous users and the exchange of over 534 million
> electronic mail messages a day.
>
> 19. The AOL service is a public accommodation as defined by Title III
> of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12181(7), in that it is a 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.
>
> FACTS
>
> 20. People who are blind, including the individual Plaintiffs and
> members of the organizational Plaintiffs, can and do use computer
> programs, including commercial applications designed to run under both
> the DOS operating system and the Windows operating system. The
> information that is displayed on the screen by the computer programs
> is made available non-visually to blind computer users by means of a
> class of software referred to as screen access programs. Screen access
> programs monitor the computer screen and convert the textual
> information displayed into synthesized speech or Braille on a device
> known as a refreshable Braille display.
>
> 21. For screen access programs to function effectively in the Windows
> operating system environment, it is necessary for commercial
> applications to function in a standard way. Among other things, the
> commercial application must provide textual labels for all graphics,
> permit keyboard access to all functions, move the focus whenever the
> keyboard is used, and rely upon standard Windows controls (e.g.,
> dialog boxes, combination boxes, list boxes, edit boxes, and push
> buttons). Screen access programs cannot read an unlabeled graphic,
> generally cannot provide an effective way to manipulate a mouse
> pointer, and generally cannot read or activate non-standard, custom
> controls that are painted on the screen.
>
> 22. Unlike some other internet service providers, AOL requires the
> user to run proprietary AOL software in order to access and use the
> AOL internet service. This software can operate only under the Windows
> operating system or on the Macintosh platform.
>
> 23. AOL's proprietary software for the AOL internet service does not
> function in the standard way required for screen access programs to
> effectively monitor the computer screen and to fully convert the
> information into synthesized speech or a refreshable Braille display.
> Among other things, AOL's proprietary software employs (a) unlabeled
> graphics, (b) commands that cannot be activated by using the keyboard
> but which instead can only be activated by using the mouse, and (c)
> custom controls painted on the screen. Indeed, what often appears to
> be text-such as the listing of channels-are in fact unlabeled
> graphics. As a result, by way of illustration and not by limitation,
> the following features of the AOL service are inaccessible to the
> blind: a. To sign up for the AOL service, the user must fill out a
> sign-up form containing blank fields to be filled in with name,
> billing address, credit card number, and similar information. Although
> text describing each field is displayed on the computer screen, the
> method AOL has used to display the text does not provide screen access
> programs with sufficient information to tell the blind user which
> piece of data is being requested in each blank field. Therefore, blind
> users are denied the independent ability even to sign up for the AOL
> internet service. b. Once logged on, the user is faced with the
> "Welcome" screen, a very unwelcoming place for blind users. There is
> some text on the screen that screen access programs can read; however,
> most of what appears as text are actually graphics that cannot be read
> by a screen access program and the icon labels on the "Welcome" screen
> do not use standard Windows formatting for labels, but are themselves
> graphics as well. This includes such features as "favorites,"
> "parental controls," and chat rooms. c. Locating the space for
> entering a keyword search or a web address cannot be directly
> accomplished by a blind user, but with trial and error and a great
> deal of difficulty, a blind user can bring up the browser and give it
> an instruction. However, unlike other web browsing software, AOL's
> browser operates in such a way that screen access software does not
> register that a browser is running. Thus, when the result of the
> search appears on the screen, the screen access program-and the blind
> user-is unaware that anything new is on the screen to be read. The
> screen access software feature for tabbing through hypertext links, a
> common way for blind users to explore a web page, can also fail to
> activate because the screen access software can fail to register that
> the user is running a browser.
>
> 24. Because the AOL service is not independently accessible to the
> individual Plaintiffs and to members of the organizational Plaintiffs,
> they have been denied the opportunity to use the AOL service's many
> features, including AOL's "online interactive community" (electronic
> mail services, "buddy list" feature, public bulletin boards, public
> and private "chat rooms,"and "auditorium" events), AOL's nineteen
> "channels" providing informational content and commerce and community
> opportunities pertaining to news, sports, games, finance, shopping,
> health, travel, kids, and other subjects, as well as AOL's
> personalization and control features that permit members to
> automatically update their stock portfolios, for example, or block
> their children's access to inappropriate web sites.
>
> 25. Without injunctive relief, individual Plaintiffs and members of
> the organizational Plaintiffs will continue to be unable to
> independently access and use Defendant's AOL service in violation of
> Plaintiffs' rights under the ADA.
>
> 26. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
>
> CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I Violation of the ADA's Communication
> Barriers Removal Mandate
>
> 27. The allegations of fact contained in the foregoing paragraphs are
> incorporated herein by reference.
>
> 28. Defendant's failure to redesign its AOL internet service to permit
> the blind to use it through screen access programs violates the
> communication barriers removal provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section
> 12182 (b)(2)(A)(iv), because it constitutes a failure to remove
> existing communication barriers from the service.
>
> 29. Redesigning the AOL service to permit the blind to use it through
> screen access programs is readily achievable. COUNT II Violation of
> the ADA's Auxiliary Aids and Services Mandate
>
> 30. The allegations of fact contained in the foregoing paragraphs are
> incorporated herein by reference.
>
> 31. Defendant's failure to redesign its AOL internet service to permit
> the blind to use it through screen access programs violates the
> auxiliary aids and services provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section
> 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), because it constitutes a failure to take steps to
> ensure that individuals who are blind are not denied access to the
> service.
>
> 32. Providing auxiliary aids and services that would make Defendant's
> AOL service accessible to and independently usable by persons who are
> blind would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant's
> service, nor unduly burden Defendant. COUNT III Violation of ADA's
> Reasonable Modification Mandate
>
> 33. The allegations of fact contained in the foregoing paragraphs are
> incorporated herein by reference.
>
> 34. Defendant's failure to redesign its AOL internet service to permit
> the blind to use it through screen access programs violates the
> reasonable modifications provisions of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section
> 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), in that it constitutes a failure to make
> reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures
> necessary to afford access to the service to persons who are blind.
>
> 35. Modifying its policies, practices and procedures to afford access
> to its AOL service to persons who are blind by redesigning the service
> to permit the blind to use it through screen access programs would not
> fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant's AOL service. COUNT IV
> Violation of the ADA's Full and Equal Enjoyment of Services Mandate
>
> 36. The allegations of fact contained in the foregoing paragraphs are
> incorporated herein by reference.
>
> 37. Defendant's failure to redesign its AOL internet service to permit
> the blind to use it through screen access programs violates the full
> and equal enjoyment and participation provisions of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
> sections 12182(a), 12182(b)(1)(A)(i), and 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii), in that
> it constitutes a failure to make the service fully accessible and
> independently usable by individuals who are blind.
>
> PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court
> grant the following relief:(a) Declare that Defendant's actions and
> inactions with respect to its AOL internet service violate Title III
> of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12182;(b) Enjoin Defendant from
> continuing to violate the ADA and order Defendant to redesign its AOL
> service and take such other and further steps as are necessary to
> allow independent access through screen access programs by persons who
> are blind; and(c) Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court
> deems just, equitable, and appropriate, including an award of
> Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs
> under 42 U.S.C. section 12205.Respectfully submitted,
>
> THE PLAINTIFFS,
>
> By their attorneys,
>
> Joseph P. Davis III, BBO No. 551111 McCABE BROWN & DAVIS A
> Professional Corporation 151 Merrimac Street Post Office Box 9147
> Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (610) 742-2700
>
> Of Counsel: Daniel F. Goldstein (Admission Pending) Lauren E. Willis
> Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP 520 W. Fayette Street, Suite 300
> Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 962-1030
>
> Dated: November 4, 1999
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 19:27:12 -0600
From: David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com>
Subject: Fwd: The blind sue AOL
>Posted-Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:39:24 -0600 (CST)
>From: David.Andrews at NFBnet.org (David Andrews)
>Date: 06 Nov 99 22:38:38 GMT
>X-To: blinux-list at redhat.com
>Subject: The blind sue AOL
>To: gui-talk at NFBnet.org (Multiple recipients of NFBnet GUI-TALK Mailing List)
>Reply-To: gui-talk at NFBnet.org (Multiple recipients of NFBnet GUI-TALK
>Mailing List)
>Sender: sysop at NFBnet.org
>Path: nfbnet!david.andrews
>Organization: NFBnet -- National Federation of the Blind
>
>
>
>* Original Area: NETMAIL
>* Original From: dlangley at calweb.com (999:1/1)
>* Original To : guitalk (1:282/1045)
>
>From: Doug Langley <dlangley at calweb.com>
>Subject: The blind sue AOL
>
>Theres a huge discussion going on slashdot.org about the blind suing
>aol. People might want to both read and participate in the
>discussion. People have a lot of missconceptions about blind
>people. Theres a pretty good faction of people who feel blind people don't
>belong in a place (the web) which was designed for sighted people. The URL
>is in the below message from another list for those who are interested.
>
>
>Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:41:01 +0100 (CET)
>From: Hans Zoebelein <hzo at goldfish.cube.net>
>To: blinux-list at redhat.com
>Subject: Slashdot discussion: Blind people against AOL
>
>At this moment, there is a discussion going at Slashdot.org about
>a lawsuit against AOL for not being accessible by people who are blind.
>You can access the thread directly at
>http://slashdot.org/yro/99/11/04/1320231.shtml
>
>I think that there are a lot of Linux users among Slashdot readers. So
>contributing to that discussion can help to make things clearer for
>the average Linux developer/user.
>
>--Hans
>
>---
>Send your message for blinux-list to blinux-list at redhat.com
>Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
>Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
>To unsubscribe send mail to blinux-list-request at redhat.com
>with subject line: unsubscribe
>
>
>---
>
>--
>This mailing list is sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind, NFB.
>For more information about the NfB, please call (410) 659-9314, point your
>internet browser to http://www.nfb.org or Telnet to nfbnet.org.
------------------------------
End of BLINDLAW Digest
**********************************************
--
This mailing list is sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind, NFB.
For more information about the NfB, please call (410) 659-9314, point your
internet browser to http://www.nfb.org or Telnet to nfbnet.org.
More information about the Wash-at
mailing list