Virgin Blue in court over website

[pauly7]

Virgin Blue in court over website

Melissa Singer | January 16, 2009 - 4:11AM

A Brisbane man is taking budget airline Virgin Blue to court over claims its website unfairly discriminates against people with visual impairments.

Virgin Blue in court over website - Queensland - BrisbaneTimes

 

[Mal]

While I agree that websites should be accessible for all (and various bodies do have standards for accessibility), I kind of think this person has nothing better to do than to be a vexatious litigant and/or a compensation seeker.

 

[NYCguy]

This is certainly vexatious litigation, and will hopefully be dismissed as such very early in the process.

 

[thewinchester]

While I can't speak on the legal aspects, being a professional webmaster I can add something to it. I took over the web portfolio of a government agency in WA some two years ago, who's websites were woeful and had not received significant maintenance since they went in place.

Since then, I have completed one site overhaul (the corporate intranet), and am mid-way through fixing our public website. I would have liked to complete these tasks well before now, and the only reason I finally received the funding and approval to do it was because we employed a receptionist who is legally blind. It took a blind person to come and work for us before we made our sites accessible - necessary to do but shameful that it only happened because of this.

I wouldn't characterise the litigant as vexatious, just someone who maybe has a little too much time on their hands to test 30,000 websites for accessibility. I simply think he's out to make a point and try and raise greater awareness of website accessibility, albeit not in a patient and gentleman like manner as displayed in Maguire V SOCOG [2000].

The core problem here is that as a community, Webmasters, designers and developers think of usability often as an afterthought when creating a new site, if thought about at all. As a community, they have not had it drilled into them the importance of inclusive design, nor have they as a whole learnt and remembered the lessons of Maguire V SOCOG.

As a consequence, those who have some form of impairment that affects the use of computer equipment are unable to effectively use websites to an appropriate level.

Also, the likelihood of any financial gain from a result in their favour would be small since it would have to be shown there was a direct and significant financial impact on himself and his inability to use the website.

The airline provides alternative contact channels by way of a phone number (thus rendering him able to achieve service), and specifically notes that those with special needs must book through there anyway.

Back to the airlines, IMHO it boils down to increased and improved online service = increased margins = increased profits.We all know that business transactions where a human from the company is involved increase the cost per transaction eating into the margins from the sale. If their website is as claimed inaccessible to those with sight impairments, all their doing is increasing the cost of doing business with this customer segment unnecessarily.

 

[oz_mark]

Strange thing though, is that when government departments put out RFP's and the like, one of the requirements is that the when you build the site you will make it accessible as required. IME this is always specified as a mandatory requirement.

I can only surmise then, that the issue is that this is then paid lip service by the contractors (and I have never heard of anyone being trained on the nuances of making a sit accessible - somehow you are expected to just learn it). Further, I can only imagine that during User Acceptance Testing no one bothers to check whether the site is accessible or not. Which is strange given that most other non functional requirements (peformance etc) are usually tested.

 

[Bandicoot]

Whilst at face value this legal action may appear vexatious, it is cases like these that test the law and enhance compliance. In the UK test cases of all sorts of law are regularly in the courts. I stand to be corrected but my understanding is the the Federal Disability Discrimination Act requires websites to be accessible. Inadvertant discrimination against people with disabilities through a lack of knowledge and a lack of resources to ensure education and compliance is a daily issue, especially when government departments do not comply. Furthermore when I contact the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner about widespread discriminatory practices in a public sector I was told that they did not have the resources to undertake an inquiry or to prosecute. So it is left up to individuals and groups to take their issues to court.

 

[dvschem]

One word .... ECONOMICS. If you want to remove all access you once enjoyed to almost all amenities, keep it up.

If every business had to cater to the specific whims of each individual, costs would soon make their product so expensive that noone could afford it.

Take VirginBlue as an example, they now need a complete website redesign, better include a full text to speech function as well as versions in every single language on the planet (Martian as well, just in case). They'll need to remove 50% of the current seats on aircraft and replace them with extra-wide seats (so that no obese passengers who needs the extra room will feel unjustly discriminated against). Better redesign the aircraft with a moving walkway in the aisle and an elevator at the tail section. Might be a good idea to stop using the VirginBlue name too, might discrimitnate against people who have trouble reading - get Prince on the job to make up a symbol for the new "name" ... sounds silly but, where does it realistically end. Brisbane to Sydney ticket - "that'll be $450,000 please"!

Me, I'm deaf as a doorpost from service in the military. When I don't hear something I say "pardon me" and people happily repeat themselves a little louder - I don't berate them for not screaming at me in the first place just in case I have difficulty hearing.

 

[anat0l]

I would only see this legal action as being necessary if the complainant had sent an adequate communication - such as a letter or a phone call - to Virgin Blue and had not received a satisfactory response.

The fact that it's blown out to be a court case and henceafter landed in the lap of the media decreases the credibility of the whole rigmarole IMHO.

Whilst I'm all for accessibility - and there are plenty of sites out there that would easily fail the accessibility test - did it really have to come down to this?

Whilst at face value this legal action may appear vexatious, it is cases like these that test the law and enhance compliance. In the UK test cases of all sorts of law are regularly in the courts.

Why does it always need to go to the courts? Using the courts is an expensive avenue and a case like this pales in comparison to some other cases - usually criminal - which should be the ones demanding the resources of the courts.

Not to mention that taking a big giant to court always scores mega brownie points with the incessant media.

One word .... ECONOMICS. If you want to remove all access you once enjoyed to almost all amenities, keep it up.

Of course. But if this litigation actually comes through - and it most certainly will if it is about discrimination - then there really isn't much choice. One would like to think that a modification of the current web site design to adhere to compliance shouldn't be too difficult nor expensive. Something more like allowing passengers of extended girth to purchase multiple seats for the price of one is more likely to have an impact compared to this.

 

[cwhite18au]

Unfortunately grey text on websites is not limited to Virgin. I'm not blind, and find grey text on a white background very difficult to read

I've written to a number of companies asking why they don't use a stronger contrast but have never had a response. I'd appreciate it someone could explain the reason.

Chris

.

 

[sadlier]

I think that people like airlines and hotels need to recognise that many people will log on to their sites under less than ideal conditions such as slow connections, poor or glary light etc etc.

Nothing worse than logging on to a hotel site from a miserable slow connection and having to endure some flash video of the hotel that I can't see anyway before you can get inside.

These websites would do well to have a clear and simple high contrast option with minimal graphics. But webmasters seem reluctant because it does not show off their capabilities.

 

[Diesellife]

Why does it always need to go to the courts? Using the courts is an expensive avenue and a case like this pales in comparison to some other cases - usually criminal - which should be the ones demanding the resources of the courts.

Well thats when Slater & Gordon or similar come in...try all they could to get a profit for themselve and perhaps the plaintiff :mrgreen: And from time to time, these type of cases are settled outside the court anyway.... Can't blame the people who is hungry for money!

 

[ethernet]

Its very simple - there are online web page testers that report the condition of websites, including disabled access. Link to W3C
If the pages flag 508 issues all over the place, find them guilty.

Virgin may have the option of suing the 'Web Professionals' for breach of contract. ICT is full of people who don't know what they are doing. What ICT says, and what they deliver are often miles apart.

I'm not sure of the replacement for Bobby, now absorbed into another IBM product, but it would be a good starting point.

Many government websites fail to meet muster. I believe The best website design is probably New York Times, who claimed none of the 'tools' worked as well as needed, so they do a lot of hand tweaking.

 

[YankeeZephyr]

I can only surmise then, that the issue is that this is then paid lip service by the contractors (and I have never heard of anyone being trained on the nuances of making a sit accessible - somehow you are expected to just learn it). Further, I can only imagine that during User Acceptance Testing no one bothers to check whether the site is accessible or not. Which is strange given that most other non functional requirements (peformance etc) are usually tested.

I work for a company that effectively contracts me out to work for other companies, and over the past 6 years or so a lot of that work has been in customer facing web sites, and the odd intra and extra-nets

Normally I find that we are told that the internal sites don't have to adhere to any accessibility constraints, however, we are given (or have to find) the criteria to make the internet site accessible through a variety of means, such as the use of screen readers, text to speech tools and the ability to increase the font size, this means a limited use of graphics for important information

In my most recent role I was managing the testing of a significant upgrade, and we ensured that the web site was as close to guidelines provided by various bodies and organisations. Sure, it added a bit of time to development and testing, but it was also a interesting to see how it could be used. My team was also involved in educating the UAT team in what they were looking for, and how to keep it up after we were gone

Ironically, we also did a 'census' of the browser/os combos that had been used to access the website in the previous 12 months, and that's where I was informed we should cut back - only the 4 most common combos would be catered for specifically, the rest were best efforts. This covered a little over 90% of the KNOWN visitors, so we were in effect potentially alienating nearly 10% of the existing customers
So, I would be more inclined to launch 'action' over "My browser/operating System's not supported", rather than "I can't see it because of the colours".
My experience here is that in some cases, the website is completely unreadable if your browser is not supported.

Not sure if this adds anything to this discussion, but felt it was worth commenting on :?::?::?:

 

[econgdon]

Actually I do find the Virgin Blue site extremely user unfriendly. For example to log in as a Velocity member takes ages to find the tab. The whole site is cluttered with other advertising. I suspect on purpose to keep people looking, much like things are moved around in supermarkets. The site also is slow loading and if you are using dial up, is virtually impossible to use. ( Tiger seems to be best at low internet speeds) Print outs of boarding passes with VBA are not clear in B&W and I have missed a flight because some coloured headings do not print on boarding passes and emails !! Well I blame that anyway..

 

[straitman]

Tiger seems to be best at low internet speeds

The Tiger site is like the airline, ..... simple & cheap :!:

 

[JohnK]

Actually I do find the Virgin Blue site extremely user unfriendly. For example to log in as a Velocity member takes ages to find the tab.

This one gets me all the time. Also once logged into Velocity it is not easy to go back and forth to the Virgin Blue home page.

 

[thegurio]

This one gets me all the time. Also once logged into Velocity it is not easy to go back and forth to the Virgin Blue home page.

That is one of the most frustrating thing about most sites with a "book the date" site... There is never an easy way to get back to the main site! Although i have noticed that there is a "virgin blue homepage" button.

 

[tcssec]

When I was studying ICT, Internet etc, we were reminded to keep the website/pages simple and ensure useability as much as possible - we were often reminded re eg colour blindness, text size etc. So it really annoys me when the techies etc don't take these things into consideration. This litigation may set a precident and move business to ensure their websites are more user friendly.

 

[serfty]

tcssec, welcome to AFF.

I believe I can see where you are coming from ...