The Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear the ADA Website compliance case when the justices return from their summer recess in the fall. Their decision and ruling would be a landmark case for the rights of disabled community online,

CNBC reporter Tucker Higgins explains in simple terms, “A blind man couldn’t order pizza from Domino’s. The company wants the Supreme Court to say websites don’t have to be accessible.”

The new article out today cites UsableNet’s 2018 ADA Web Accessibility Lawsuit Recap Report explaining the current and historic legal landscape for ADA Website Accessibility lawsuits. We’ve included an excerpt or you can read the article in full here.

Domino’s has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Robles’ case, where it could prove to be a landmark battle over the rights of disabled people on the internet.

“If businesses are allowed to say, ‘We do not have to make our websites accessible to blind people,’ that would be shutting blind people out of the economy in the 21st century,” said Christopher Danielsen, a representative for the National Federation of the Blind, an advocacy group.

The number of lawsuits over inaccessible websites has exploded recently. Last year, more than 2,200 such suits were filed in federal courts, according to the accessible technology firm UsableNet, up from just 814 in 2017.”

Danielsen, of the National Federation of the Blind, tells CNBC, “There is a ton of space for innovation in this area,” he added. “Rather than refusing to take the money of those of us with disabilities, why not innovate and take our money?”

We agree that with over here are also plenty of 1.6 billion people purchasing goods online just a few short years ago, the compelling moral and ethical reasons for companies to ensure that their websites are fully accessible. business case for web accessibility in 2019 couldn’t be stronger. But t

While becoming ADA Compliant may seem overwhelming, it doesn’t need to be. There are plenty of resources to help. You can start here with our guide, Web & App Accessibility: Your Roadmap to Digital Inclusion or contact UsableNet for a free consultation and let one of experts guide you through the process.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

But companies also face an even more pressing accessibility concern- an unprecedented number of ADA web accessibility lawsuits in 2018. Plaintiffs targeted more than 850 retail outlets, making up 38 percent of all suits, the greatest share of any industry. Early data from January through June of 2019 shows this trend continuing with lawsuits against retailers making up 58 percent of all claims.

Despite this compelling data, many myths persist about web accessibility.

1. I’ll have to compromise my site’s design and functionality.

Good accessibility is good usability. It also boosts SEO, can streamline your sales path, and can help you better integrate your brand into site design.

Good accessibility and good design can go hand in hand but will take some effort. It’s harder to try and combine after the fact and easier to do as you build from scratch.

For this retailers wanting to keep their current design and features as is but provide full accessibility they can look at dynamic remediation.

UsableNet Assistive is the perfect solution. If accessibility is a top priority but exceeds your technical ability or IT capacity, our fully managed service can help. We’ll do all the heavy lifting as you continue business as usual. In a few weeks, you’ll have an accessible site and a major item checked off your to-do list.

2. I’m a small business. Only large retailers get sued.

It’s easy to dismiss these lawsuits as something relevant only to the Fortune 500. You’re a mom-and-pop shop, so plaintiffs aren’t going to waste their time on you. While many plaintiffs do target large corporations, in truth, no one is safe- Ben Tundis, owner of Island Comfort Footwear in Clearwater, Florida, discovered this first-hand. If you’re a business that is expanding or growing quickly, you’re even more likely to attract this attention.

If you feel you could be a target of legal action, you essentially have two options: invest now on accessibility upgrades and make meaningful changes to your website that can bring you more business, or waste money later on an avoidable legal settlement. And a settlement with one plaintiff doesn’t prevent additional lawsuits-31 percent of retail companies listed in suits since July 2017 have been sued multiple times. When put in these terms, the choice seems simple.

3. We’ll fix this when we redesign the website.

Website redesigns are mammoth projects and the longer you wait to begin, large segments of the population are left unable to interact with you online, even if they have been loyal customers.

There are free tools to help you get started, but the right technology partner can speed things up without breaking the bank. In the long run, it’s short money to make accessibility upgrades now and avoid lost business- and lawsuits -later.

4. This doesn’t apply to our business; we don’t sell very much online.

Even if your website simply exists to provide company information, location, or hours of operation, you want it to be accessible to the widest possible audience. If you’ve taken the time and expense to install a ramp or widen an entrance, it’s a no-brainer to extend that access digitally.

Accessibility also improves your performance in browser searches. A common-sense structure paired with properly labeled information and images is an ideal recipe for greater search visibility.

5. This isn’t our target market-none of our customers are blind.

Put simply, every business has customers with disabilities. To think otherwise leaves potential market share unclaimed and risks legal action.

By some estimates, the emerging market of people with disabilities now is equal to the population of China- a colossal 1.3 billion potential customers. Baby Boomers-currently the wealthiest generation-make up a majority share of this market.

Many users with disabilities rely on the internet to do much of their shopping. You have a unique opportunity to be a leader in your industry, creating a universally accessible experience that welcomes all shoppers. Customers are hungry to support socially responsible companies.

Learn from the best.

Take inspiration from the example of Peapod, an early pioneer in retail accessibility. As early as 1993, the online grocery delivery company hosted a screen-reader version of its site and offered phone support.

Peapod turned to UsableNet when it needed an upgrade to comply with a voluntary DOJ settlement. Let their story be your inspiration to take action.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

The truth is they all fail in three fundamental areas.

1. Overlay vendors fix only the easy stuff leaving big accessibility gaps.
2. Overlays override users existing assistive technology such as a screen reader.
3. Overlays lack WCAG conformance certainty.

There are many new vendors offering similar overlay solutions because they are technically easy-to-do and cheap-to-provide but they fail to deliver true accessibility to all. They are feeding off the surge of ADA-based Web accessibility many companies searching for quick solutions to the very complex issue of accessibility.

The truth is that for companies with existing complex web sites, include accessibility at the start of a website build and want a solution retail, restaurants, travel, banking and healthcare, web accessibility is hard work. These solutions fail in three fundamental areas which I dive into below. If you did not that is usable by all and fully conforms to WCAG , someone will have to do the hard work of updating all your code ( HTML , JavaScript and CSS) and design .

I want to be clear that these vendors do some of the work. But what they fix is easy stuff to spot and the easy stuff to fix (and maybe you r own team should be doing it anyway) . After these fixes, they promise that their overlay technology can address and fix the rest of the accessibility issues.

Below I have highlighted the three biggest flaws in these solutions for modern websites . I also want to explain what they do and how they do it , so you can compare approaches.

1. Overlay vendors fix only the easy stuff leaving big accessibility gaps.

Sounds good so far, right? There is a catch. T he fixes added in this process represent only 20% of the accessibility that need to be reviewed and fixed .

Updating attributes cannot address more significant ba rriers . Some vendors may claim, “but we can use ARIA tags to fix complex interactions” . That can only be true if that interaction was built with ARIA in mind. However, most existing scripting on sites did not consider accessibility when coded and how ARIA could be used. P ractically speaking, those interactions need to be re-coded . That’s the hard stuff.

2. Overlays override the users’ existing assistive technology

This is the biggest weakness. People with disabilities who require assistive technology to use and navigate websites already have preferred assistive technology that they use every day . They have invested their time to learn how to use it and are likely most comfortable using their own devices to navigate the Web. Their devices are set up to do the things they need such as, text-to-speech, zoom, color contrast , etc. An overlay attempts to replace the functionality of these devices.

To use the “text-to-speech” feature in an overlay , the person requiring the assistive technology must turn off their own, preferred screen-reader and rely solely on the overlay.

“Using the overlay screen reader instead of my regular screen reader locks me into a small set of features such as arrow, tab and maybe heading navigation. When I use my screen reader on a regular site that has been properly coded or fixed for accessibility, I can access any form control on the screen (buttons, edit fields, aria controls, etc.) and I have the ability to pull up a list of links on the page. Moving to the overlay removes all powerful and useful features from me.”

So, if an overlay-solution promises to fix 80% of the accessibility items that could not be fixed when the vendor updated attributes, then this value is likely lost for the average screen-reader user, the same customer you are trying to serve with your accessibility updates.

3. Overlays lack WCAG conformance certainty

The final item I will highlight is the continued importance of the WCAG.

All major accessibility laws and policies around the world, as well as past DOJ settlements, ADA lawsuits and resulting settlements reference the WCAG 2.0 AA as the prevailing minimal standard. That could extend to the new WCAG 2.1 soon, but will take time for laws and policies to catch up.

If you want to ensure access to all and avoid lawsuits, you need to ensure all your code is updated to WCAG standards.

You can do that hard work yourself and UsableNet has technology and services to support your efforts. If you prefer, UsableNet can do all the work for you through dynamic remediation and UsableNet Assistive . can handle the hard fixes (80% of issues) as well as the easy, automated ones, in order to provide a fully compliant WCAG solution. UsableNet Assistive and our team Assistive is the only solution that continuously monitor and remediate any new content or code you introduce as part of your regular website update and improvements.

There are no short cuts to making and keeping your website and apps accessible, but UsableNet experts are here to help. If you’re ready, contact us we offer a free, 30 minute consultation to get you started.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

We’ve released our 2019 Midyear report which includes findings highlighted here.

2019 rate Reaches one-an-Hour

The rate of lawsuits filed in federal courts related to website and app accessibility has now hit a rate of one-an-hour, that’s 8 a day, 40 per week and set to be on pace for over 2,000 lawsuits again this year.

Image description: Image depicts a clock and confirms one lawsuit per hour rate

Even if that sounds like a lot it is only the starting point of the volume of companies being affected. In addition to the companies being listed on claims in federal court, there is a growing number of state filed lawsuits and demand letters sent directly to companies claiming harm and requesting compensation for damages.

The number of all these are growing because….

Most Companies Settle and Settle fast

Our new research reveals not just who is sued but how long the cases stay open before a settlement is made. The average case is open less than 60 days and the vast majority of companies settle and do not take the case into a protracted court process. Why?

In short, it is cheaper to settle than to defend.

Most companies are unaware of digital accessibility; some businesses even feel victimized when they receive a website accessibility claim. It is common for defendant lawyers, when their client have taken steps to allocate resources for digital accessibility, to recommend settling. The only real costs in an ADA lawsuit are the attorney fees (in some courts some small damages can be added). So, Counsel’s default recommendation is often to settle fast and then act fast to make the Website accessible in order to mitigate and defend future claims.

UsableNet Assistive has been adopted by many companies looking to deliver accessibility in weeks and have that accessibility maintained.

Act fast Or expect another suit soon

With 25% of all ADA lawsuits in 2019 naming a defendant for at least the second time. That means if you are sued once you are likely to be sued twice if you do not take action. For some companies with multiple brands it could be the 6th or 7th time the holding company has been listed in a suit. We wrote a blog on why retailers are targeted multiple times for ADA Website Accessibility and how they can reduce this risk.

In short, a company should have an enterprise and multi-brand accessibility policy that is immediately communicated internally and externally and start working on accessibility to mitigate the risk of future lawsuits. Companies should act immediately to mitigate risk of multiple suits.

48% of Top 500 Retailers Sued

The retail industry continues to be the top targeted industry with almost half of the top 500 US retailers being listed in ADA lawsuits since 2017. But it is not just Retail, there are over 20 different industries affected along with Retail including the Food Service Industry, Travel, Real Estate and Entertainment.

Image description: The industries that received the biggest focus in web accessibility litigation include retail, food service, travel/hospitality, banking/financial, entertainment and leisure and self-service.

Nationwide and International Effect

Although two states (NY and FL) are the most common federal courts that lawsuits are filed in, most likely due to the location of the plaintiff and plaintiff’s law firm, but the internet has no borders. Companies are selling and providing services nationwide via their websites, a trend reflected in the companies being sued. Defendant companies are located throughout the US with more than 6% headquartered internationally with business dealings in the US.

Image Description: A visual depicts a map of the United States with top states for headquarters of lawsuit recipients, California, New York, Florida, New Jersey and Texas in dark blue. Image notes that 6% of companies sued are headquartered internationally in countries including the UK, France, China and Brazil.

Summary

2019 is on track to at least match the number of federally filed lawsuits recorded in 2018. State level lawsuits and demand letters are on the rise. This will mean that in 2019 Web Accessibility should have an increased prioritization for companies. There are many resources to help, including those from UsableNet. If you’re ready, feel free to contact us for your free ADA Website consultation.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

In the recent case of Diaz v. The Kroger Co., 18-cv-7953 (KPF), the judge ruled the plaintiff’s ADA claim as moot. In this case the plaintiff had identified several barriers on the website, and the defendant remediated them. By fixing those errors, bringing the website into compliance with the WCAG, and stating its intention to remain in compliance going forward, it rendered the plaintiff’s ADA claim as Moot, according to the judge’s ruling in this case.

This case is the second in 2019 to be dismissed in New York in favor of defense. On March 28th, Judge Preska dismissed the class action suit brought by a legally blind woman against Apple Inc for discrimination based on Website accessibility in Himelda Diaz v. Apple, Inc., 18-cv-07550 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. March 28, 2019).

In this new case, Diaz v. The Kroger Co., 18-cv-7953 (KPF) the Defendant’s performed and communicated to the court the following actions resulting in the judge ruling the plaintiff’s complaint moot.

• Defendant had undertaken to comply with the WCAG before this lawsuit was filed;
• The website now complies with the WCAG 2.0 standards;
• Confirmed that all of the deficiencies identified in the complaint had been remedied;
• Verified the barriers to access which were identified in the complaint no longer exist;
• Defendant was committed to keeping the website in compliance with the WCAG so that it would remain accessible;
• Defendant had no intention of undoing those changes or regressing to non-compliance with the WCAG and ADA (both due to the time/cost involves in achieving compliance and due to a desire to avoid future similar lawsuits); and
• Defendant intended to keep the website up to date with any new website accessibility standards that are issued/promulgated.

A great summary of takeaways from this case was outlined by Joshua A. Stein and Shira M. Blank of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. in the National Law Review. We’ve included the excerpt here:

“This decision is clearly another positive development for businesses facing website accessibility lawsuits in the SDNY (particularly of a repeat nature). However, notwithstanding the court’s thorough, multi-faceted, analysis, the precedential value of this decision should not be overstated. As the Court acknowledged, its holding diverges from those in other circuits, and, in some ways, other courts in this district. Accordingly, while this decision undoubtedly provides businesses — particularly those frustrated by multiple lawsuits notwithstanding their attempts to modify their websites to comply with the WCAG — with additional grounds through which to fight back, it remains unclear whether other district court judges will engage in the same analysis or reach the same conclusion. Moreover, while this court accepted the representations made by the defendant’s employee in his affidavit, we would strongly recommend that any company that seeks to file a similar motion to dismiss for mootness include support from an outside website accessibility expert (containing considerably greater details about how the company achieved compliance and its plans to maintain compliance going forward) as well as that of a qualified employee.

Like the Mendez v. Apple decision earlier this spring, this decision does not preclude serial plaintiffs from filing multiple, identical, lawsuits against various defendants. Nevertheless, there has been a marked decline in the number of website accessibility lawsuits filed in the SDNY following the Mendez decision. We expect that this decision will further ebb the flow of these lawsuits in the SDNY. That said, given recent decisions in other jurisdictions ( e.g., California state court), this will most likely simply result in more lawsuits being filed elsewhere. In the meantime, as we’ve repeatedly noted for years, the best way to avoid falling prey to such a suit is to achieve substantial conformance with WCAG 2.1 Levels A and AA (as confirmed via human-based auditing from both the code and user perspectives).”

While the path to a fully accessible, ADA-compliance website may seem overwhelming, it doesn’t need to be and it is still the best way defend and mitigate risk of ADA claims in the current litigious landscape. If you’re ready to take the first steps toward accessibility for all users and ADA compliance, request a consultation with our experts. We’d love to talk and see how we can help.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

Modern Restaurant Management (MRM) Magazine raises awareness of ADA accessibility suits with May article covering the “steep increase in litigation in the hospitality industry brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).”

Writer Michelle Anderson, a partner at Fisher Phillips explains the current legal ADA accessibility landscape and alleges, “plaintiffs’ lawyers have found a lucrative niche with this litigation, engaging the services of ‘testers’ who are private citizens that go from business to business looking for ADA violations. Restaurants are frequent targets of these efforts.”

The report cites UsableNet’s data in explaining the current and historic legal landscape for ADA-based Website Accessibility lawsuits. We’ve included an excerpt from the article or you can read the article in full here.

“The law does not require that businesses be notified of any alleged violations in advance of being served with a lawsuit. Hence, most businesses are caught off guard and end up spending thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to resolve these cases, when the cost of actual compliance is very low. Often, there are no damages for the actual plaintiff in the case. Rather, the plaintiff’s lawyers capitalize on the fact that no advance notice is required because the statute provides for their attorneys’ fees and costs.

For the past few years, a new twist has been on the rise. Businesses are being sued under this same section of the ADA for websites that are allegedly inaccessible to people with disabilities, meaning that these testers are not necessarily visiting the brick-and-mortar establishment, but rather surfing on the internet looking for those businesses that have websites that are not accessible for people with disabilities.

In 2018, ADA website litigation increased 181 percent over 2017. According to UsableNet, more than 2,200 lawsuits were filed in federal courts nationwide in 2018, and 11 percent of the lawsuits were food service establishments. The most cases were filed in New York and Florida. This is not because companies in those states are committing more infractions; it’s more a symptom of the active plaintiffs’ bars in those states where the same attorneys are filing multiple suits. Indeed, many companies that are sued operate in multiple states and even internationally.”

The lawsuit culture that surrounds website accessibility and has grown steadilycontinues to intensify in 2019. Industries like retail, healthcare, hospitality, food service-have historically found themselves the target of legal action. It’s encouraging to start to see industry publications raising awareness.

In 2019, the business case for web accessibility couldn’t be stronger. In addition to avoiding costly litigation cited in the article companies that take steps for accessibility will reap the rewards including, brand integrity, optimized SEO, financial rewards and enhanced innovation.

UsableNet Can Help

Try our Accessibility Checkerfor nine easy check areas compiled by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) or contact UsableNet for a free consultation.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

Tomorrow is Global Accessibility Awareness Day 2019. At UsableNet, we’re counting down this week with a new blog post each day meant to raise awareness of the experience a person with a visual disability has when interacting with the digital world.

For today’s post, we asked Abigail and Kate about their experience shopping online. Retail is the most frequently targeted industry for ADA web accessibility lawsuits -with 38 percent of retailers listed in federal ADA web related filings.

Abigail is blind who uses a screen reader for Mac and iphone to navigate the Internet. Kate is person with low-vision who uses Windows Magnifier for PC. We’ve edited for length to present just some of their feedback here.

Kate: I like it when websites lay out their menus very clearly. The text is bolder. When you click on that link, another menu drops down and it gives you more options. I would really like companies to consider the links they use in their menus. Say, for example, if I am shopping for shoes, it’s really important that the distinctions are made between high-heeled shoes versus flats, sandals versus sneakers, things like that.

Abigail: Some of the challenges I experience with online shopping relate to different colors with an item. There might be a really great description of a blouse or a dress that I’m looking at, but then there are three different options for color or patterns, and those options aren’t actually labeled. There might be colors or pattern names that the company has come up with on their own. In those instances, I’ve had to contact the company directly to complete my purchase because I want to make sure that I’m getting the color or style of a product that I want.

Kate: I look at product descriptions mostly for things that I can’t see very well, like the distinctions between colors and in some cases the sleeve length or whether there are sequins or lace or anything like that, the types of material. I think it’s very helpful when retailers both provide a color swatch and a word-based description of what the color is or the pattern.

Abigail: The only way I knew that it went to my bag is by pulling up the list of links where it said, “Bag,” and in parentheses, it had the number of items. That was the only way I knew that after I hit, “Add to Bag,” it went there.

Abigail: Once I got to the checkout, it loaded a floating window instead of to a next page. It was confusing whether the next portions of checkout had loaded.With the checkout system, it would be helpful if it loaded a new page each time. To the best of my knowledge, that’s the only that I would be able to know using my screen reader, because each time it goes to a new page, I get a notification with voice-over.

Each phase of an online transaction can present multiple and varied challenges to a person with a visual disability. Too often, companies don’t know understand all of these challenges. But with the help of screen reader testing to identify key issues or a trusted accessibility partner, your website can become accessible within just a few weeks.

Whether you need guidance to get started or someone to handle the entire process, UsableNet is your trusted technology partner for website accessibility. We’d love to help you get started in this process. Contact us for a free consultation.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

Welcome to User Perspectives on Website Accessibility, a blog series created by UsableNet as we countdown to Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) on May 16, 2019.

Approximately 253 million people worldwide have a visual impairment. Too often though, companies don’t test with screen readers and are caught unaware when ADA website claims are filed.

Today and tomorrow, we feature excerpts from interviews with Abigail and Kate, real people who also have visual disabilities. While UsableNet is a trusted partner for companies that are working to make their websites accessible and usable, we hope to shed light on the other side of experience and honor the spirit of GAAD by raising awareness.

Abigail is blind and uses a screen reader for Mac and Iphone to navigate the Internet. Kate has low-vision and uses Windows Magnifier for PC. What follows is an excerpt from their interviews, condensed and edited, on their experience navigating the digital world.

Abigail: Losing my sight has created challenges for me, but at this point I view it more or less as an inconvenience. I use lots of tools, especially technology, on my iPhone or computer to do my work.

Kate: Day to day it’s just normal life. I use an iPhone as my mobile device. There’s a built in zoom option as well as an invert color setting that I use for most websites.

Kate: I spend most of my time using the mobile version. I’d say some of the main differences are the menus are laid out differently. It takes a little bit more effort to navigate the desktop site, just because it’s more spread out.

Abigail: I prefer to access sites on my mobile device or the mobile website versus the desktop version because there’s less information or ads or things I have to dig through to get to what I’m interested in. Our current trends are to use pictures and graphics to convey information and it’s making it less accessible to people like myself who are blind or visually impaired to keep up with what’s going on.

Abigail: I have difficulties being able to complete a full transaction of booking my itinerary and that’s because some of their form fields aren’t labeled, so not knowing where to place my credit card number or where they’re wanting me to place my name and personal identification becomes tricky and I usually have to end up calling the airline directly to complete the transaction.

Kate: When I’m booking air travel, I like to use the desktop version of the website. The options are easier to select. All the information is usually on one screen and it’s easier for me to look at multiple options at once. It’s really easy when the headlines are clear, the menus are laid out, and when there aren’t slideshows of images with links on them because it takes me too long to read the text and by the time I get halfway through the text on the image, it has already moved on.

Kate: High contrast is something that I really look for in a website. Dark text on a light background or vice versa, light text on a dark background. [Read more on WCAG, ADA and Why it Matters].

Abigail: The top three things that websites could do to make things more accessible is to have more headings, to have everything labeled so all of the links have a label or alt tag and fewer floating windows.

was created to increase of awareness about digital accessibility. The co-founder, Joe Devon wrote a now Global Accessibility Awareness Day infamous blog post and called for a day in which people in tech would test their website’s accessibility.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

Welcome to User Perspectives on Website Accessibility, a three part blog series created by UsableNet for our countdown to Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) on May 16, 2019. Each post in this series is meant to pay tribute to the spirit and original mission of GAAD, by helping creating awareness of how a person with a visual disability interacts with the digital world.

Our first post was originally published as a blog by Knowbility i n August 2018. We’re delighted to share it. here.

Since 1999, Knowbility has advocated for an internet that is accessible to all people, including those with disabilities. When websites and mobile applications are made accessible, people with disabilities have the chance to become more socially and economically integrated into broader society. In keeping with its mission, Knowbility has a proven track record of employing people with disabilities and equipping them with the knowledge and skills to pursue meaningful careers in the field of web accessibility and beyond. This profile highlights the example of Desiree Sturdevant, who worked as an accessibility specialist for Knowbility. Her story offers lessons for other organizations that wish to employ college-educated people with disabilities.
Desiree was born with microphthalmia, a genetic condition in which the eyes are abnormally small. Since childhood, she read large-print books in school, and after her vision deteriorated further, she began learning braille. Since the age of 13, she has been a braille reader. She grew up in Utah and moved to Austin, Texas in 1992. She attended high school there and graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a degree in music in 2000. She worked a series of customer service call center jobs for several years until the birth of her first daughter in 2004.

In 2005, she became aware of Knowbility through its OpenAIR accessibility and web design hackathon, one of Knowbility’s community programs. Desiree connected with Executive Director Sharron Rush, and soon after began working as a contractor, assisting with accessibility audits. Knowbility provides accessibility testing and training services, and Desiree’s firsthand experience with assistive technology made her a good fit for this kind of work.

Desiree enjoyed the work and wanted to work with Knowbility, both as a way to maintain a strong resume and keep up her tech skills. In 2008, when her first daughter began preschool, Desiree started working part-time. She presented accessibility demos, wrote for Knowbility’s blog, took meeting minutes, and continued providing expert input for Knowbility’s audits. She also refined her technical skills with screen readers, braille personal digital assistants, and smartphones.

“For me, it was a chance to get out there, keep my work skills up, and still mostly be a stay-at-home mom,” she said. “Being on staff, a little extra money, it was good, but the flexibility that I needed to stay home and be with my daughter, it was really what I was all about at the time, and they were really supportive of it at Knowbility for me to do that.”

While being adaptable to an employee’s family commitments is an admirable quality of a great employer, it becomes a true necessity for many disabled employees, especially those who are beginning to raise a family and depend on public transportation. When Desiree first started with Knowbility, rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft did not exist, and taxi fares were prohibitively expensive. Thus, Desiree needed to use paratransit on days when she was needed in the office. Paratransit rides are door-to-door shared rides, and in most cities need to be booked a day in advance.

From 2008–2011, Desiree worked part-time for Knowbility. She took time off upon the birth of her second daughter, but she continued to present assistive technology demos at John Slatin AccessU, Knowbility’s annual web accessibility conference, and participate in large accessibility testing projects. Desiree’s experience demonstrates that being part of a mission-driven team with leadership that encourages professional growth will increase the chance of further substantial employment.

“Knowbility really offered me lots of opportunities to learn several different skills: training, teaching, demoing, and the energy for the cause for accessibility.”

Along with leadership however, flexibility in working arrangements complements Knowbility’s formula for success for people with disabilities. As Desiree noted, being able to work from home proved beneficial for her and her family.

“I do think that flexibility has to be there because not everybody can work from an office,” she said. “It’s transportation issues. If they [disabled people] have motor disabilities, it’s really difficult for them to get out of their houses sometimes, but they still want to interact with society.”

As the technology that allows for remote work becomes more affordable and user-friendly, providing a flexible schedule in which employees work partially or entirely from home will continue to make economic sense and allow for people with disabilities to maximize their potential.

In April 2018, Desiree began working full-time with Pearson. As a Senior Blindness Technology Specialist, Desiree will advise Pearson’s developers and designers on ways to make their web products accessible. Pearson has a large presence in the education market, and Desiree’s vast wealth of knowledge will be a great asset to the company. Desiree’s work ethic and curiosity combined with the tech skills she’s learned over the years have allowed her to fulfill her potential. Her desire to contribute to her community and the good fortune of having worked with people who encouraged her to perform at a high level have put her on a path towards career success. Employees who wish to have dedicated workers should focus their attention on the millions of highly educated disabled Americans who want to be part of mainstream society.

“If the person really wants the job, they’re going to work hard for it,” she said. “They’re going to do the best they can for that job because people want to feel useful. They want to feel needed. They want to feel productive.”

Thanks to Knowbility for allowing us to share Desiree’s story. You can read the original blog post and Knowbility’s post about Global Accessibility Awareness Day here.

In Austin this week? Celebrate Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) with Knowbility, Austin Accessibility Meet Up, and the co-founder of GAAD, Joe Devon.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.

In a recent analysis of Web Accessibility lawsuits filed in New York in the last month, the UsableNet data and research team found new claims show more specific detail of the barriers encountered by blind plaintiffs using screen readers, as compared to the same type of claims filed in 2018.

New York ADA Web Cases

In a March 28 thruling in the Southern District of New York, Judge Preska dismissed the class action suit brought by a legally blind woman against Apple Inc for discrimination based on Website accessibility. In her ten-page ruling, Judge Preska dismissed the case based on a lack of detail in the filing that did not sufficiently plead an injury.

Since the Apple ADA ruling, the number of similar claims filed in New York slowed for a couple of weeks. This is likely due to the increased detail needed to establish injury. Last year, New York and Florida had the highest number of ADA-based Web lawsuit filings, according to Usablenet’s own 2018 lawsuit recap report.

As of this week, claims filed in New York are back on pace with the 2018 rate of filings, with more than 20 in a single week.

The law firm used by the plaintiff in the Apple case, Cohen & Mizrahi was one of the top ten lawyers for these cases according to the same 2018 report. Since the ruling on March 28th, the firm stopped filing actions for a few weeks but are back again, we’re seeing them actively filing claims on behalf of their plaintiffs.

Recent data indicates that the Apple ruling is unlikely to reduce the number of cases for 2019. Unfortunately, the majority of Web sites still have issues for screen reader users, as the 2019 study by WebAIM shows. A recent report suggested that businesses are unaware of accessibility issues with their websites. The number of lawsuits filed so far in 2019 tells us that there are an i ncreasing number of individuals willing to bring their cases to the courts in order to gain equal access to Websites and mobile apps.

A Positive from a Negative

In one recent claim filed in New York, Fischler versus PetMeds, the plaintiff attorney provided specific details of user paths that could not be accessed and dates of attempts. This additional detail of when and how users with disabilities use a Website with assistive technology like screen readers should help companies make their websites accessible faster.

With specific details, defending companies can easily understand and quickly resolve the practical issues with their website or mobile app. Less remediation time means a lessened likelihood of potential of follow-on claims, more claims brought by other individual plaintiffs.

For companies that want help, experienced Accessibility partners like UsableNet offer services to make corporate websites accessible within weeks.

The new emphasis in ADA Web filings on the experience of a visually disabled person should help companies understand and better serve customers with disabilities.

If a company wants to strengthen their defense of ADA Web claims, build accessibility programs or mitigate legal risk, testing and maintenance plans that use screen reader testing or user testers from the disability community can provide the same specificity found in these new filings.

Originally published at https://blog.usablenet.com.