RE: AOL against ADA?

["Waddell, Cynthia" <cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us>]

In my opinion, a significant legal issue in the AOL case is the ADA
definition of "effective communication" not whether or not there is a
product.  See US Department of Justice policy ruling dated September 1996.
Of particular interest is the definition of "effective communication" set
forth by the Office of Civil Rights, US Department of Education (another ADA
enforcement agency) that "effective communication" has three basic
components:  timeliness of delivery, accuracy of the translation, and
provision in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the
message and the abilities of the individual with the disability.  See Letter
of Resolution 09-97-2002.  Further discussion is found in my 1998 article
written at the request of the American Bar Association "Applying the ADA to
the Internet:  A Web Accessibility Standard."  See
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/weblaw1.htm.  These definitions are currently
being utilized by the ADA enforcement agencies having jurisdiction over
higher education in their resolution of ADA Office of Civil Rights cases
since 1995.

Cynthia D. Waddell
---------------------------------------------------
Cynthia D. Waddell   
ADA Coordinator
City Manager Department
City of San Jose, CA USA
801 North First Street, Room 460
San Jose, CA  95110-1704
(408)277-4034
(408)971-0134 TTY
(408)277-3885 FAX
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/webcast/cynthia.htm
http://www.aasa.dshs.wa.gov/access/waddell.htm 



-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly Pierce [mailto:kelly@ripco.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 4:49 AM
To: John Nissen
Cc: uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: AOL against ADA?


John,

One of the reasons why there is a delicate dance about the aol lawsuit is
that the ADA does not apply to manufactured goods.  This is why the ADA
cannot be applied to Microsoft's Windows operating system:  it is a
manufactured good (software) and is exempt from the ADA.  Another example
would be books.  Publishers such as McGraw-Hill, do not have to publish
books in an alternative format for the disabled to have access.  A clear
argument that can be advanced in the AOL lawsuit is that the aol software
is a manufactured good and as such is exempt from the ADA.  On the other
hand aol produces this "good" itself and has complete control over its
content and the good is necessary to use the service.  the issue of aol
software makes this case somewhat different from an action against a
commercial website.

kelly 



On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, John Nissen wrote:

> In message
<0A005268C8DED311A23E0008C75D1EFF475FD9@sj-exchange.ci.sj.ca.us> 
> "Waddell, Cynthia" writes:
> 
> >...  I am still absorbing the witness statements available online.
> >What does everyone think of the testimony entitled "The Unsuitability of
the
> >ADA for an Organic Medium" by Susyn Conway.  I understand she used to
work
> >as a Director for AOL.
> 
> I've not read this.  But I wonder whether there is a real problem for
> companies like AOL, who supply special software to their end-users for
> to allow them to use certain services.  The accessibility, which ADA may 
> demand, would apply to this software, which has no doubt been written 
> without accessibility in mind, and would thus be costly and time-consuming
> to make accessible.  Is this the hidden agenda?
> 
> Cheers from Chiswick,
> 
> John
> -- 
> Access the word, access the world       Tel/fax +44 20 8742 3170/8715
> John Nissen                             Email to jn@tommy.demon.co.uk
> Cloudworld Ltd., Chiswick, London, UK   http://www.tommy.demon.co.uk
>