2007 PhD Thesis Final Revised.pdf - Curtin University

Such views again highlight the inconsistencies between governments at a state and
territory level in addressing disability divide issues.
Although the US legislation has a more effective framework in addressing the
IT needs of people with disabilities, there are issues that need to be addressed even in
that country. Hood (1996) observed that the ADA had not always been used for its
intended purpose. Examples raised by Hood include the use of the ADA as a means
of getting lump sum unfair dismissal payouts rather than supporting the hiring of
people with disabilities and he noted that the ADA has not helped severely disabled
Americans.
In terms of IT development, there is considerable debate as to whether or not
the ADA actually covers important issues such as the accessibility of web sites. The
ADA views the public accommodation of services as a requirement for equal access
to people with disabilities, even if they are operated by private entities (Winn, 2001).
On this basis it was assumed that this legislation would apply to companies that
issued web sites containing public information. Yet recently, a US court ruled that
organisations providing online services do not need to comply with this act. This
means that although US government web sites must meet accessibility criteria,
companies displaying public information are not obligated to ensure their
information is accessible. This decision upholds a 2002 ruling in which it was
deemed the ADA only applies to physical spaces, not web sites. The case was
originally filed against Southwest Airlines due to the inaccessibility of their web site
(Royal National Institute of the Blind, 2004). The ongoing ambiguity of the
significance of the ADA in relation to the disability divide makes it difficult for
Americans to rely on its significance.
One of the biggest criticisms of Section 508 from a government standpoint is
that it does not have enough ‘teeth’. Quentis Scott from the GSA indicated that,
although companies are required to meet stringent accessibility standards to sell
products to the government, once they have been accepted it is difficult to determine
liability should a company stop complying with Section 508. In essence, once a
company is accepted, little more is required and at this time of writing, no company
has been prosecuted for failing to comply with Section 508. There is also some
88