[Dustin Baker; posted 20030403; First Final Only]

I. Introduction
The term "digital divide" is the measure by which society is segregated into two groups, those who can effectively use information from and communicate over the Internet and those who cannot.i  There are many facets of the "digital divide" including nationality (citizens of highly developed countries are more likely to have Internet access than citizens of less developed nations) and income (the more affluent will be better equipped to access the Internet than the indigent).ii
This paper is, of course, concerned with the "digital divide" between the disabled and the non-disabled. Of course, access alone will not entirely solve the problem since people also need the skills to operate computers and access information on the Internet.  Accessibility to the Internet is the foundation, however.  Once the disabled have access to the Internet they can be taught to effectively use it.  On the contrary, the best training in the world will be ineffectual for those who do not have access.  Therefore, this paper will address the issue of getting the disabled access to the Internet comparable to the access enjoyed by the rest of society.
A series of topics will be discussed.  First, the limited impact of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act's accessibility standards will be considered.  Second, the argument for applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to the Internet will be analyzed.  Third, the few cases that have been heard considering applying the ADA to the Internet will be discussed.  Fourth, several reasons for making the Internet accessible regardless of statutory requirements will be presented.  Finally, a series of tips to keep in mind when create a web site to make that site accessible will be presented.  Of course this is a legal paper rather than a technology thesis; therefore the tips can be understood by the less technologically advanced.  Some preliminary discussion of the origins of the Internet and the prevalence of disabilities in America are necessary to fully comprehend the problem before it can be discussed.
II. Background
A. Internet Background
According to Go For Hostingiii, a web hosting Internet site, this is how the Internet developed.  The Internet is a relatively recent development in our society.  The Internet as it is known today was originally developed under the supervision of the United States Department of Defense.  The Department of Defense began a network called Arpanet.  Arpanet was developed in the 1960s as a way to maintain communication among strategic geographic locations around the country if the Cold War erupted into an actual conflict.  The government sponsored the development of Arpanet since the main forums of known communication would most likely be a target of an attack.  With this concern in mind, Arpanet was developed to transfer messages between two locations even when various points on the network have been destroyed.  The network was dispersed over a wide area and the connections were interconnected in a spider web-like fashion, hence the name "the web".iv
 The original Arpanet has been expanded many times over and forms the foundation of the Internet today.  The progress of the Internet was furthered significantly by the efforts of the National Science Foundation.  The NSF saw potential in this communication network to connect researchers at major universities to allow the sharing of information in the name of science and technology.v
 The network of the Internet has grown dramatically since its inception.  Nobody expected the Internet to grow this large or this quickly.  As a result of the rapid expansion, many organizations have sought to become a part of the Internet.  Many of these organizations, in turn, have developed ways of connecting to the Internet using their own individual software and hardware.  Unfortunately, since the burgeoning of the Internet was so unexpected the law was unable to keep up and, as a result, there is significantly less regulation of the Internet than other communication mediums.  As a result of the wide range of different organizations that became a part of the Internet and the lack of a governing body to supervise the expansion, the Internet may be hard to navigate at times.  Users may also get lost in the quagmire of the exorbitant amount of information available on the Internet.vi
 It is not difficult to imagine how these problems increase exponentially when a user has vision, hearing or dexterity problems.  Not to mention a host of other disabilities that impede Internet access.  Therefore, especially considering the growing importance of the Internet in people's everyday lives, it is imperative that the disabled, a large portion of the population, receive equal access to this fantastic medium of communication.
B. Disability Background
According to a survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1992, 15% of the United States population, 38,000,000 people, have a disability.vii  For the purposes of this study disability was simply defined as a limitation in one's major activity due to a chronic health condition.viii
A similar survey in 1994 suggested that the likelihood of developing a disability increases with age.ix  Among all Americans under the age of 22, only 1.7% has a disability.x  The percentages gradually increase among different age brackets to a staggering 53.5% of the population over the age of 80 that has a disability.xi
Thanks to rapid developments in medicine Americans are living longer and longer.  This means that the percentage of elderly people in this country is going to continue to increase.  As the number of elderly increases the number of Americans with a disability is also likely to increase.  Therefore, accommodating those with disabilities will become more important as time goes by; the problem will not just go away.  Congress appears to have recognized the problem and may have attempted to address it through legislation, the implications of that legislation are discussed in the next section.
III. Legislation Enacted to Address the Problem of Internet Access for the Disabled
A. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was Congress' first major attempt to halt discrimination against the disabled.  The main emphasis of the Act originally was employment discrimination; specifically businesses were urged to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals.xii  The Rehabilitation Act established a program akin to affirmative action for minorities, initiated an access board to ensure disabled persons were able to physically access the workplace, and required federal contractors to give equal consideration to disabled applicants in its hiring process.xiii  Section 508 established non-binding accessibility guidelines in 1986 but it was amended in 1998 to become binding upon all federal agencies.xiv
Section 508 applies to all electronic and information technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal departments and agencies.xv  Section 508 requires that all electronic and information technology is comparably accessible to all federal employees regardless of disabled status.xvi  As with most legislation there is an exception to the rule.  If the employer can show that an accommodation would pose an undue burden, comparable access is not required.xvii
Section 508 instated the Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board, an agency of the Department of Justice, to define electronic and information technology as well as set forth performance criteria necessary to implement the requirements of section 508.xviii  "The term electronic and information technology includes, but is not limited to, telecommunications products (such as telephones), information kiosks and transaction machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office equipment such as copiers and fax machines."xix  This makes it abundantly clear that section 508 applies to web sites.
 The Architecture and Transportation Compliance Board set forth the performance criteria as follows.  At least one mode of operation that does not require user vision must be provided or support for assistive technology used by the visually impaired must be provided.xx  At least one mode of operation must not require visual acuity greater than 20/70.xxi  At least one mode of operation that does not require user hearing must be provided or support for assistive devices used by the hearing impaired must be provided.xxii  Where audio information is important, at least one mode of operation must be provided in enhanced audio fashion.xxiii  At least one mode of operation that does not require user speech must be provided or support for assistive technology used by people with disabilities must be provided.xxiv  Finally at least one mode of operation that does not require fine motor skills must be provided.xxv
 Through the efforts of the Architecture and Transportation Compliance Board section 508 appears to require equal Internet access to the disabled.  The Board expressly defined electronic and information technology to include web pages.  The Board further set standards which appear to address the most prevalent of the disabilities which affect Internet access, namely poor vision and lack of motor skills.  The drawback of section 508, however, is that it only applies to federal and a few states' agencies.  Many state legislatures are implementing their own form of section 508 requirements applicable to all that state's agencies and public universities, however.xxvi  The fact remains, unfortunately, that the vast majority of web sites on the Internet are not regulated at all.
In the 1980s, when the section 508 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act was adopted, the Internet was in its infancy stages compared to what it is today.  Since what is today known as the Internet was initially developed as a government project, it is this author's contention that Congress had no conception of how the Internet would blossom and become such an integral part of the average person's everyday life.  Based upon this belief, it is asserted that Congress would have required as much of the Internet as practicable to be equally accessible to disabled individuals had it envisioned what the Internet was to become.  As a result of this lack of express inclusion of the Internet by Congress very few web sites are required to comply with the accessibility standards of section 508.
States which receive funding under the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act are required to show compliance with section 508 standards or lose those federal funds.  As a result some state operated web sites are required to be accessible to all employees and, indirectly, to any members of the general public who seek to access those web pages.  This was a significant step in the march towards equal access to the Internet for the disabled.  The fact remains, however, that the vast majority of web sites remain unregulated by the Rehabilitation Act and, therefore, inaccessible to the disabled.  Hence, more is required of Congress to fully address the issue of Internet access to the disabled community unless the courts happen to interpret the congressional intent to pertain to the Internet.  This has not been the case relating to the Rehabilitation Act yet.  The Americans with Disabilities Act, however, has been ruled to apply to web sites by at least one circuit court.
B. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
On July 26, 1990 President Bush signed the ADA into law.xxvii  President Bush described the Act as "the world's first comprehensive declaration of the equality of people with disabilities, and evidence of America's leadership internationally in the cause of human rights."xxviii  The ADA used section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as a model.xxix  The ADA, however, incorporated enforcement mechanisms, which section 504 lacked.  The basic purpose of both the ADA and section 504 is to prevent discrimination against those with disabilities in all facets of life.
The ADA is divided into four titles.xxx  Title I is concerned with discrimination against the disabled in the area of employment.xxxi  Title II deals with discrimination in public services operated by state and local governments against the disabled.xxxii  Title III prohibits discrimination against the disabled in "places of public accommodation" and from services offered by private entities.xxxiii  Title IV is simply a catchall section entitled "miscellaneous provisions".xxxiv  Title IV sets out certain exemptions from coverage and special rules under the ADA.  Section 12205 allows plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees and court costs from a defendant found liable.xxxv  Section 12210 exempts the illegal use of drugs from the definition of a person with a disability under the ADA.xxxvi  Perhaps most significant in the Internet context is section 12204, which appoints the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to set the standards of access that "public accommodations" must meet.xxxvii  This is the same agency appointed to set the accessibility standards for federal web sites under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.  The argument logically follows that since the same agency set Internet accessibility standards under the Rehabilitation Act these standards for web sites have been incorporated into the ADA making the ADA applicable to the Internet.  This assertion has yet to be presented to a court for interpretation, however.
The claim for ADA applicability to cyberspace can most persuasively be made under Title III of the ADA.  The assertion that needs to be made is that web sites are "places of public accommodation."  The ADA does not define "public accommodation" but rather merely sets forth a list of entities that are "public accommodations".xxxviii  A sentence preceding the list of entities does require the operations of services to "affect commerce."xxxix  This would, most likely, be interpreted to mean that Title III of the ADA only regulates those web sites, which are operated commercially.  Hence, those web sites that do not charge a fee or sell a product may not be subjected to these accessibility standards.  However, many free web sites charge advertisers to place advertisements on the site in order to defer the cost of its visitors ergo affecting commerce.  Of those enumerated entities that the ADA considers "public accommodations" the following could possibly be construed to include the Internet:
(C) a motion picture house, theatre, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or public gathering;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;xl

 The Internet is routinely a "place of exhibition or public gathering" (chat rooms and bulletin boards), a "place of exhibition or entertainment" (bulletin boards and comedy we sites), a "sales or rental establishment" (commercial web sites and car rental web sites), and a "place of public display or collection" (eBay).  The Internet can be each of these things independently as well as all of them at once.  At least one court has limited the actual language of this list in interpreting whether the ADA applies to web sites, however.xli
 After convincing a court that the Internet falls within the ADA's definition of "public accommodation" a plaintiff must allege discrimination by the public accommodation under section 12182 of the ADA.xlii  This section provides three ways in which a "public accommodation" may discriminate on the basis of disability.  First it is discriminatory to deny an individual the opportunity to "participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity."xliii  Second discrimination may occur under this section when an entity affords "an individual ... with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals."xliv  Finally this section defines as discriminatory an action by an entity that provides services separate from what is provided to other individuals unless the separation is necessary to put the opportunity on equal grounds with that opportunity provided to other individuals.xlv
 Finally, if a plaintiff is able to convince a court that the Internet is a "public accommodation" under the ADA and puts the web site operator's conduct within one of the enumerated examples of discriminatory practices, the plaintiff then must make a claim under the "specific prohibitions" section.xlvi  Under the "specific prohibitions" section there are four causes of action.xlvii  First the plaintiff can claim that the web site prevents individuals with disabilities from "fully and equally enjoying" the content of the site.xlviii  Second a plaintiff may allege that the web site has failed to make "reasonable modifications...to afford (access) to individuals with disabilities."xlix  Third, a claim could be made that the entity has failed to take steps "to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded...because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services."l  Under the "auxiliary aids and services" claim an entity has two defenses.li  An entity may refuse to implement the "auxiliary aids and services if they would "fundamentally alter" the service or impose an "undue burden" upon the entity.lii  Neither "fundamentally alter" nor "undue burden" is defined within Title III of the ADA so it is unclear what defenses an entity actually has under this Title.  However, as will be discussed below, making a web site accessible will in no way alter a web site nor impose a financial burden.  A minimal burden will be imposed on programmers but it is negligible.  Finally an allegation may be made that the entity has failed to remove "communication barriers" within the web site.liii  A defense for the entity is also provided under this cause of action.  An entity is not required to remove barriers where the removal is not "readily achievable."liv  "The term 'readily achievable' means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."lv  As previously stated a following discussion will show that the cost and difficulty of making a web page accessible is minimal so this defense should not apply in the Internet context.
 All forms of discrimination and causes of action enumerated in the preceding paragraphs appear to be easily applicable to web sites.  In fact, a 1996 opinion letter from the Department of Justice assured Senator Tom Harkin that the Title III of the ADA was fully applicable to web sites.
Covered entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well.lvi

The Department of Justice is given enforcement powers under the ADA.lvii  Therefore this statement should be compelling to any court.  However, this assertion has yet to be considered in any court case.  Furthermore, at least one court has refused to apply the ADA to a web state in holding that it only applies to "concrete, physical structures" and not to the abyss of cyberspace.lviii  The following section will examine the few cases that have arisen on this controversial issue along with the reasoning of the courts in deciding for or against the ADA's applicability to the Internet.
IV. Cases Alleging ADA Applicability to the Internet
Whether the ADA applies to the Internet remains unresolved by most courts.  The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to hear a case involving this problem.  In fact, very few district courts have even addressed the issue.  The Internet has grown so quickly and dramatically over the past decade that courts have not yet been seriously confronted with the issue of equal access.  Only two cases appear to be directly on point.  The cases are district court cases from two different jurisdictions and have contrary outcomes but can be reconciled with each other.  One other case that arose in 1999 had the potential of deciding this issue once and for all but it was settled before trial.
A. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlineslix
In this case Access Now, Inc., an access advocacy organization for disabled individuals, filed suit against Southwest Airlines on behalf of a blind person.  The complaint alleged that Southwest was in violation of the ADA by not making its web site accessible to the blind.  Specifically plaintiff alleges that Southwest's web site violates 1) the communication barriers removal provision of the ADA, 2) the auxiliary aids and services provision of the ADA, 3) the reasonable modifications provisions of the ADA, and 4) the full and equal enjoyment and participation provisions in Title III of the ADA.lx
The Eleventh Circuit recognized that this was a case of first impression.lxi  Never before had an Eleventh Circuit court been asked to decide whether an Internet web site was a place of "public accommodation" as defined under the ADA.  The implications of this case within the Eleventh Circuit, as well as other jurisdictions, could be severe.  If the court held that Southwest's web site was covered under the ADA as a place of "public accommodation" many other companies maintaining web sites would be put on notice.  Many would be scrambling to make their web sites accessible to the disabled.  Still others would be shutting their web sites down in order to avoid liability under the ADA until it could be made accessible.
Unfortunately this court ruled against the plaintiff and therefore did not require Southwest to update its web site to make it more accessible to the disabled.  The Eleventh Circuit relied on its statutory interpretation of "places of public accommodation".  First the court found that a web site does not fall within one of the enumerated categories of public accommodations.lxii  "Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, where general words follow a specific enumeration of persons or things, the general words should be limited to persons or things similar to those specifically enumerated."lxiii  Furthermore, the court held that the list was exclusive and all encompassing thereby limiting all places of public accommodation to those set out explicitly in the statute.  Third, and more devastating to the cause, the court surmised that Congress intended Title III of the ADA to only govern "access to physical, concrete places of public accommodation."lxiv
In reaching its decision the Eleventh Circuit attempted to distinguish a previous decision it made with respect to the ADA definition of public accommodation.lxv  In Rendon the Eleventh Circuit held that the selection process for the television game show "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" unfairly discriminated against the disabled and therefore violated the ADA.  In order to qualify for the show contestants were required to answer trivia questions over their phones by using the touch tone keypad.  Those contestants who answered the questions the quickest were chosen to actually appear on the show.  Plaintiffs in Rendon alleged that the telephone selection process deprived "the plaintiffs of the opportunity to compete for the privilege of being a contestant on the game show."lxvi  The court noted that the plaintiffs stated a claim under Title III of the ADA since they demonstrated "a nexus between the challenged service and the premises of the public accommodation," specifically the studio where the show was recorded.lxvii  Hence, the Eleventh Circuit distinguished Rendon on the fact that "the public web site at issue here is neither a physical, public accommodation itself as defined by the ADA, nor a means to accessing a concrete space such as the specific television studio in Rendon."lxviii
It is at this point when this case becomes reconcilable with Metro Atlantic Rapid Transit Authority, discussed below, where another district court heard a nearly identical case and ruled for the plaintiffs.  Immediately after the court concluded its discussion about the requirement of a nexus between the service and a physical place, it mentioned that Plaintiffs did not allege that the web site impeded their access to a specific airline ticket counter or travel agency.lxix  This statement by the court suggests that if plaintiffs had simply claimed that Southwest's web site impeded their access to a ticket counter or travel agency there may have been a significant nexus to a concrete physical place and the outcome may have been different.
The court also summarily rejected a First Circuit case interpreting the same provision of the ADA.lxx  In that case the First Circuit held that the ADA's definition of "public accommodation" is not limited to physical structures but also applies to health-benefit plans.lxxi  The Eleventh Circuit recognized that under the holding of the First Circuit case Internet web sites would be included under the definition of "public accommodation".lxxii  However the court simply noted that the First Circuit reads Title III of the ADA more broadly than they do.lxxiii
B. Martin v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authoritylxxiv
This was a class action suit in United States District Court in Georgia on behalf of plaintiffs who have "profound physical impairments."lxxv  The complaint alleged a variety of violations of both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.  The complaint of relevance here is plaintiffs' averment that MARTA failed to provide its information in an alternative format accessible by the disabled, especially its web site, which was inaccessible to the blind.lxxvi  "MARTA's web site provides the general public with extensive information on the routes and schedules for its fixed route services.  It is not yet formatted in such a way that it is uniformly accessible to persons who are blind."lxxvii
The court refused to grant MARTA's motion for summary judgement.  "[T]he plaintiffs have met their burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits for defendants' failure to make available to individuals with disabilities adequate information concerning transportation services through accessible formats and technology to enable users to obtain information and schedule service."lxxviii  The court made an even stronger statement in the next paragraph of the opinion.  "[I]t now appears that MARTA is attempting to correct this problem.  Until these deficiencies are corrected, MARTA is violating the ADA."lxxix  Therefore this court expressly stated that a web site meets the definition of "public accommodation" under the ADA and therefore must be made accessible to the disabled.
C. National Federation for the Blind v. AOL
Before the Southwest Airlines and MARTA cases arose a suit against AOL was commenced.  In November of 1999 the National Federation for the Blind filed the complaint in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The NFB alleged that AOL failed to remove communications barriers presented by its designs, thus denying the blind and visually impaired independent access to this service in violation of Title III of the ADA.  The complaint lists three features of AOL that prohibit access to the blind.lxxx  The NFB is quick to point out that this is not an exclusive list and there are other ways in which AOL impedes the access of blind users in violation of the ADA.lxxxi
The first feature that is inaccessible to blind users is the sign up process.  In order to sign up for an AOL account users are required to enter their name, billing address, and credit card number, as well as other relevant information into blank fields on the sign up web page.lxxxii  Text is displayed on the screen to describe what information is desired in each field but the display method used by AOL is incompatible with screen reading programs.lxxxiii  Therefore, blind users are unable to sign up for AOL at all.lxxxiv
Secondly, even if a blind individual is able to overcome the obstacles in the sign up process there are more hurdles on the welcome screen that appears immediately upon signing into one's AOL account.lxxxv  The welcome screen contains a variety of options such as "parental controls", "favorites", and "options".lxxxvi  Much of the text on this welcome screen is in graphical form, which is unrecognizable by screen readers, which prohibits a blind user from fully utilizing the AOL service.lxxxvii
The third feature NFB attacked was the method by which AOL performs keyword searches over the Internet.lxxxviii  Assuming a blind user is able to locate the space for entering a keyword search or a web address, AOL's software does not communicate to the screen reader that a search is being performed.lxxxix  Thus, when a result appears on the screen the blind user is unaware that anything new has appeared to be read.xc
As a result of these three allegations plaintiffs ask for an injunction.xci  "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."xcii
Pursuant to those AOL features that are not equally accessible to the blind, NFB makes four claims for relief; identical claims to those made in the Southwest case.xciii  Count one alleges a violation of the communication barriers removal provision of the ADA.xciv  Count two asserts that AOL is violating auxiliary aids and services mandate of the ADA.xcv  Count three avers a violation of the ADA's reasonable modification mandate.xcvi  Finally, count four states that AOL is in violation of the full and equal enjoyment of services mandate of the ADA.xcvii  Furthermore, NFB asks the court to access all attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to AOL.xcviii
AOL's undoubtedly adept legal counsel decided to settle the case before it actually went to court.  In the settlement agreement AOL, not admitting to application of the ADA to its service, acquiesced to three actions.xcix First, AOL agreed to define its corporate commitment to making its service accessible by posting its accessibility policy on its web site.c Second, AOL agreed create an accessibility checklist to guide and educate its employees in making the service fully accessible.ci  Third, and finally, AOL agreed to enter into agreements with screen reader technology companies to ensure the newer versions of AOL were compatible.cii
It is not clear what AOL's motives were in not pursuing this suit until fruition.  However, the two most likely reasons lend significant support to the argument for equal access to the Internet by the disabled.
One probable inference is that AOL, after studying the ADA and any previous cases, which were decided on the issue, decided that there was a very good chance that they would lose the case.  Therefore, to avoid future embarrassment AOL opted for a settlement.   If this is the true thinking of AOL it lends support to the argument for the ADA's applicability to Internet web sites.
Another, equally supportive, proposition is that AOL conducted a cost-benefit analysis and determined that it was in their best interest to make AOL accessible to the blind.  After a quick investigation AOL would have determined that it was neither difficult nor cost prohibitive to make their software accessible.  Furthermore, AOL may have realized that the blind population represents an untapped resource.  Making AOL accessible to the blind as well as other people with disabilities would increase their business.  Therefore, as a result of this investigation AOL may have decided that the cost of the litigation was pointless considering making their service accessible only made AOL more money in the long run.
Regardless of which of the preceding propositions are true it lends support for making all web sites accessible.  If the plain meaning of the ADA evinces Congress' clear intent to have its provisions apply to the Internet then web designers need to start making accommodations.  On the other hand, if making a web site is cheap and easy there is no reason not to require web designers to make their web sites accessible since it will only increase their exposure among the 42 million people with a disability in this country.  This is especially true when one considers that the AOL service is probably more complex than the majority of other web sites on the Internet.  If it is feasible for AOL it is most likely feasible for other web sites.
V. Accessible Web Sites are Better Web Sites
 Even though regulations are currently not in place for all web pages, web site designers should be cautious in designing non-accessible sites.  A convenient way to view the dilemma of web programmers in deciding whether or not to follow accessibility guidelines is analogous to the situation of a construction contractor faced with building codes.  It is undoubtedly true that cutting corners with building materials and techniques may go unnoticed by inspectors.  This fact may lure many contractors to skimp on a few things here and there when constructing a new edifice.  However, a few extra dollars today has the potential of avoiding harsh penalties in the future, both monetary and punitive.
 Even if the chances of getting caught are minimal, the contractor is still taking a significant risk.  If the violations are discovered after the construction is complete, either the violations must be corrected or a significant fine will be imposed.  In either case any money saved by cutting corners in the construction will be lost as well as additional money on top of that.  This is so because the correct materials and labor must be purchased presently while all the previous labor and materials are useless and already paid for.  Additionally, the added cost of deconstruction must be factored.  In the long run it will obviously be more efficient to build within the code requirements.
 Budgetary efficiency aside, there are other benefits in following the set standards namely comfort, convenience, and reputation.  A well-insulated house will save the homeowners on heating and cooling bills.  A building constructed with proper support beams will need less maintenance and last longer.  This list of benefits is near infinite.  Furthermore, a well constructed home will gain praise from prospective homeowners which may stir up business for the quality concerned contractor.
 The case for making web pages accessible from their initial inception is even more compelling.  In the construction context a significant amount of money could be saved on building materials by not fulfilling code requirements.  However, in the Internet context no additional materials are necessary to make a web page accessible, each user provides all the equipment he or she needs.  All that is needed is a marginal amount of additional labor.  For the most part all that is necessary is for the designers to eliminate their bad programming habits.  If all programmers wrote their computer code identically accessibility problems would be reduced significantly.
 Furthermore, making web pages accessible to the disabled is beneficial to the web site operator as well.  When clear and concise HTML is implemented the web site can boast faster pages, easier navigation, and experience a wider audience.ciii  By making the site accessible it can be visited not only by the disabled, who make up a large amount of the population, but also those using cell phones, slow modems, or text-only browsers.civ  Therefore, it is not only beneficial to the disabled who gain access to the plethora of information available on the Internet but web site operators themselves will experience praise from the disabled and non-disabled alike for their superior web site.  Furthermore, especially in the case of commercial web sites, members of the disabled community may be so grateful for the easy access that they reward the site operator with their business exclusively.
VI. Steps to Make Web Pages Accessiblecv
 There are a variety of choices available to web designers who seek to make their pages accessible to the disabled.  Accessibility software can be purchased from local computer stores and there are services available on the Internet that will test a web site for free.  The most popular of these Internet services is Bobby, made available by Watchfire.  Bobby can be found at http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp.  Simply go to this site and type in the URL of the site and Bobby will check it for accessibility.  Before using Bobby, however, there are a few simple steps web site designers should follow to alleviate future headaches.
1. Use clear programming languagecvi
It is imperative to ensure that the HTML used in the web page is clear.cvii  Clear programming language ensures that the page is presented well in all Internet browsers.cviii  Since there is a variety of browsers used by different people, this step is essential to ensure all users have equal access.  It is very simple to ensure good programming language; designers need to be conscientious of bed programming habits they may have picked up over the years.  There are many HTML validators available on the Internet for free.cix
2. Provide alternate content for non-textual contentcx
It is especially important to provide alternate content for non-textual components for the visually impaired.cxi  A blind individual, for example, needs to use a screen reader in order to access the Internet.  The screen reader can only convey text to the user, not graphics that lack a textual accompaniment.cxii  Therefore, it is essential to provide descriptions of all non-textual components of a web page to promote equal access.  The blind, after all, have a right to know everything that is available on a page that a sighted person is able to see.
3. Be careful when using colorscxiii
While providing textual content for everything on a web page allows the blind to access the Internet those with limited sight may be thwarted by the use of colors.cxiv  A web page designer needs to be careful when choosing which colors to use as background and text.cxv  The text and the background colors need to contrast enough to allow visually impaired people to read the text.cxvi  It is also important to accommodate those users who cannot see color at all.cxvii  A fully accessible web site cannot use colors as the sole means of conveying a message.cxviii  For example, an instruction on a web page to follow the blue links is no help to an individual who cannot see the color blue.cxix
4. Provide a no frames alternativecxx
It is important to provide a no frames alternative to web sites because some browsers are text-only; screen readers for the blind are similarly text-only.cxxi
5. Use proper tagscxxii
Neither the author, nor this paper itself, purports to be an expert in HTML language.  Those who design web sites need to know that the use of proper tags on their pages is essential for the disabled, especially the blind, to access the site.  For those readers who are not acquainted with programming language let it simply be said that some web designers use programming language which is confusing to those using screen readers in order to make the pages more aesthetically pleasing.  For example, programmers may use tags in order to have the text appear further away from the sides of the pagecxxiii.  A screen reader would read these tags and convey to the user a completely different meaning to those not using a screen reader.cxxiv  It is more important for the user to be able to access the information than the text to appear exactly where the designer wants it on the page.
6. Make links easily identifiablecxxv
Links are often presented as graphics on a web page rather than text.cxxvi  For this reason links must be clearly identified on a web page.cxxvii  When graphical links are converted to text either in a text-only browser or by a screen reader adjacent links will often run together and appear as one long link.cxxviii  Therefore, to make a web page equally accessible to all users links must me clearly identifiable as independent from one another.cxxix
7. Check for browser compatibilitycxxx
Browser compatibility is an implicit consideration in all of the preceding suggestions, significantly with text-only browsers.cxxxi  However, another aspect of designing a fully accessible web site is to avoid using browser specific programming.cxxxii  As stated above, this is not an article on computer programming so let it be known simply that there does exist programming language, which is exclusive to certain browsers.  There are numerous browsers that individual users may be running at any given time and the task of making web pages accessible to all of them may seem daunting but it shows yet another advantage of having Internet access.  Anybody can check a web page's accessibility with a variety of different browsers, including text-only browsers, at http://www.anybrowser.com.cxxxiii
8. Go to Bobby
Now, finally, Bobby can check the web page.  If all the preceding steps were followed there should be no problems but Bobby may catch a few errors that slipped through the cracks.cxxxiv  It never hurts to double check.
IV. Why Web Sites should be Made Accessible to the Disabled
The percentage of the United States population living with a disability is growing annually.  Likewise, the percentage of the population relying on the Internet as a mode of communication, access to information, and daily life activities is also increasing.  As a result of the growing demand for Internet access and the increasing propensity that one will develop a disability in his or her lifetime the question of whether the web should be fully accessible to the disabled needs to be answered in the affirmative.
After 1992 all federal agencies have been required to make their web sites accessible.  The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board has issued the standards for making those web sites accessible.  Since the use of the Internet has expanded beyond the almost exclusive use of the government and into the realm of the citizens on the United States there is no reason why the entire Internet should not be made accessible.  In fact there are many compelling reasons in support of accessibility; compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions under the ADA and the increased necessity of having Internet access in modern society are two major ones.
The issue of whether the ADA actually applies to the Internet remains undecided.  However, the few courts that have heard the issue have favored making the web accessible for the most part.  It appears that it will not be long before the enforcement mechanisms of the ADA will apply to cyberspace.  However, under the express language of the ADA, it is probable the ADA only applies to those web sites affecting commerce.  Therefore, many non-profit web sites may not be regulated, but significantly more web sites than are currently regulated can be reached.  In fact a large number of web sites on the Internet could be reached by applying the ADA.
Even if web site operators are not concerned about potential legal action by the disabled community or have decided that their site does not affect commerce the fact remains that there is no good reason not to make a web site accessible.  The cost of making an accessible web page is miniscule.  An accessible web site benefits all users and the operator by running more efficiently.  The number of disabled individuals in this country alone is in excess of 42 million.  That is a very large segment of the population to neglect, especially for commercial web sites that could be earning revenue from these people.  Regardless of whether or not a web site is seeking to make money greater exposure should be a goal.  Is there a better way to achieve exposure than making a web page accessible to more users?  This author can think of none.

xcixNational Federation for the Blind, National Federation of the Blind/America Online Accessibility Agreement, available at http://204.245.133.32/Tech/accessibility.htm
cId.
ciId.
ciiId..
ciiiJakob Nielson, Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity, (New Riders Publishing, Indianapolis, 2000).
civId.
cvBeit Nirenberg, Steps to Making Your Web Page Accessible to the Disabled, at http://www.geocities.com/bnirenberg/access_steps.html
cviId.
cviiId.
cviiiId.
cixId.
cxBeit Nirenberg, Steps to Making Your Web Page Accessible to the Disabled, at http://www.geocities.com/bnirenberg/access_steps.html
cxiId.
cxiiId.
cxiiiId.
cxivId.
cxvBeit Nirenberg, Steps to Making Your Web Page Accessible to the Disabled, at http://www.geocities.com/bnirenberg/access_steps.html
cxviId.
cxviiId.
cxviiiId.
cxixId.
cxxBeit Nirenberg, Steps to Making Your Web Page Accessible to the Disabled, at http://www.geocities.com/bnirenberg/access_steps.html
cxxiId.
cxxiiId.
cxxiiiId.
cxxivId.
cxxvBeit Nirenberg, Steps to Making Your Web Page Accessible to the Disabled, at http://www.geocities.com/bnirenberg/access_steps.html
cxxviId.
cxxviiId.
cxxviiiId.
cxxixId.
cxxxBeit Nirenberg, Steps to Making Your Web Page Accessible to the Disabled, at http://www.geocities.com/bnirenberg/access_steps.html
cxxxiId.
cxxxiiId.
cxxxiiiId .
cxxxiv Id.
1
 

29