discrimination

Fifty Years of Hard-Won Rights Are on the Line: The Fight to Save Section 504

by

Published in support of the National Federation of the Blind‘s March 2026 call to action.

There is a lawsuit moving quietly through the American legal system right now that could undo five decades of civil rights progress for tens of millions of disabled Americans. It is called Texas v. Kennedy, and if you haven’t heard of it yet, that is exactly the problem.

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is sounding the alarm — and asking all of us, disabled or not, to pick up the phone and write the email. Here is why this matters, what is at stake, and exactly what you can do about it today.

The Law That Changed Everything

In 1973, Congress passed Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — the first federal law in American history to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Its principle was simple and radical: no person with a disability could be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

In the decades since, Section 504 has meant that a blind child has the legal right to accessible materials in a federally funded school. That a wheelchair user cannot be turned away from a government building. That a disabled employee at a federally funded organization has recourse against discrimination. It was the direct legal precursor to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 — one of the most important civil rights laws ever enacted in this country.

Section 504 is not a technicality. It is the legal backbone of disabled life in America.

What Texas v. Kennedy Threatens

The Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit, filed by a coalition of nine states led by Texas, challenges the federal government’s authority to enforce Section 504 as currently written and applied. According to the NFB’s official call to action issued in March 2026, the lawsuit “risks weakening or eliminating key protections that blind people in the United States rely on every day,” endangering access to “education, employment, public services, and other essential opportunities.” [National Federation of the Blind, March 2026]

If the plaintiffs prevail, the federal government’s ability to require accessibility accommodations, enforce non-discrimination standards, and hold federally funded institutions accountable could be dramatically curtailed. Schools could reduce or eliminate accommodations for disabled students. Employers at federally funded institutions could discriminate against disabled workers. Public services millions of people depend upon every day could become legally inaccessible without meaningful federal recourse.

The implications reach beyond Section 504 itself. The legal theory at the heart of this case — that federal authority to attach civil rights conditions to federal funding is constitutionally limited — could set a precedent that weakens enforcement of other civil rights statutes as well. This is not simply a disability rights issue. It is a civil rights issue for every American.

The Nine States Behind This Lawsuit

The following nine states are currently party to Texas v. Kennedy:

  • Texas
  • Alaska
  • Florida
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • South Dakota

The NFB has already organized nine of its state affiliates to write directly to their respective attorneys general urging withdrawal from the case. [NFB Letter from Nine Affiliates, March 2026] Now it is time for the broader public to join that effort.

Why Your Letter or Call Can Actually Change the Outcome

It is easy to feel that a single email cannot change the course of a federal lawsuit. But that thinking misunderstands how political and legal pressure actually works.

Attorneys general and governors are elected officials. They are acutely sensitive to constituent opinion, organized public pressure, and the reputational cost of being seen as attacking the civil rights of disabled citizens. When thousands of letters arrive, when inboxes fill and phone lines ring, when local and national media begin covering a public outcry, political calculations change. Officials who joined this lawsuit made a choice. Sustained constituent pressure helps them make a different one.

Beyond the direct political impact, a documented record of public opposition shapes how officials talk about the case publicly, how they respond to press inquiries, and whether withdrawal begins to look like the politically prudent path. The history of American civil rights is full of moments where ordinary people writing ordinary letters tipped the balance. This is one of those moments.

If You Live in One of the Nine States: Contact Your Officials Now

If you are a resident of any of the nine states party to this lawsuit, your message carries the most direct political weight. Please contact your state attorney general and urge them to withdraw your state from Texas v. Kennedy immediately.

Here are the direct contact emails provided by the NFB [NFB Call to Action, March 2026]:

When you call or write, here is what to say (adapted from the NFB’s suggested message [NFB, March 2026]):

“Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I am a constituent. I am writing to urge you to withdraw our state from the Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit. This lawsuit threatens Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — a critical civil rights protection that ensures equal access for blind and disabled Americans in education, employment, and public life. Weakening Section 504 would cause real, lasting harm to real people in our state. Please take immediate action to remove us from this harmful lawsuit. Thank you.”

Make it personal if you can. Tell them about a family member who depends on accessible education. A friend who relies on workplace accommodations. A neighbor whose independence would be threatened. Officials remember letters that put a human face on the law.

If You Live Outside the Nine States: Contact Texas Directly

Texas is the lead plaintiff and the political engine driving this lawsuit. Even if you are not a Texan, contacting the Texas Attorney General’s office sends a clear signal that this case has drawn national attention and national opposition.

Texas Attorney General: kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov

Tell them that people across the country are watching this case, and that the disability community — and everyone who supports civil rights — expects better.

Share This. Amplify This. Don’t Wait.

The NFB’s call to action is clear: “Your voice is critical. Every message sent and every phone call made helps demonstrate that blind Americans will not stand by while our civil rights are threatened.” [NFB, March 2026]

But this fight belongs to all of us. Forward this article. Post it. Print it out for someone who needs it. Bring it up at your church, your school, your community organization. The officials who signed their states onto this lawsuit are counting on public silence. Let’s make sure they don’t get it.

Section 504 is a promise America made to its disabled citizens fifty years ago. Let’s hold the line together.

Sources & Further Reading

For more information, contact the National Federation of the Blind at 410-659-9314 or visit nfb.org.

The Digital Door Is Closing on Disabled Americans: Please Help Us Keep It Open

by

Imagine you are blind. Your child has a disability. The school district has just posted crucial updates to its website about your son’s Individualized Education Program — his IEP, the legally mandated document that governs every support, accommodation, and service your child is supposed to receive in school. You open the site. Your screen reader — the software that speaks text aloud so you can navigate a world built for sighted people — hits a wall. Images have no descriptions. Forms won’t load. Buttons have no labels. You click again and again, trapped in a digital maze with no exit.

Now imagine learning that your tax dollars paid for that website.

This is not a hypothetical. This is the daily reality for millions of Americans with disabilities. And right now, the federal government is moving to weaken a rule that was specifically designed to end this kind of exclusion.

We are asking you — disabled people, parents, family members, friends, teachers, healthcare workers, religious leaders, and every person of conscience — to take one action: request a virtual meeting with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and tell them to leave the 2024 Title II accessibility rule intact.

Click here to request a meeting.

What Is Happening and Why It Matters

In April 2024, after decades of advocacy by disabled people and their allies, the U.S. Department of Justice finalized a rule under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requiring state and local governments to make their websites and mobile applications accessible to people with disabilities. The technical standard adopted — the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1, Level AA (known as WCAG 2.1 AA) — is an internationally recognized benchmark. For large government entities serving populations of 50,000 or more, the compliance deadline is April 24, 2026.

This rule was hard-won. The DOJ has recognized since at least 2003 that state and local government websites must be accessible under the ADA. The 2024 rule finally put concrete, enforceable teeth into that obligation.

But on February 13, 2026, OIRA — the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an arm of the Office of Management and Budget — published a notice revealing that the Department of Justice had submitted a revised rule to OIRA as an “Interim Final Rule,” or IFR. Unlike a proposed rulemaking, an IFR does not require a public comment period. The public has not been shown what revisions are being proposed. This has never been done before with an accessibility regulation.

The changes could push back or eliminate the April 2026 deadline. They could hollow out other requirements. No one outside the agencies knows yet.

What we do know is this: anyone can request a virtual meeting with OIRA under Executive Order 12866 to explain why the rule matters and should not be changed. The agency is not required to grant a meeting, and a meeting does not guarantee an outcome. But if thousands of people and organizations step forward, their voices will be on the record — and in any future legal challenge to changes in the rule, that record may matter enormously.

The deadline is urgent. The April 24 compliance date for large governments is weeks away.

The Price of Inaccessibility: A Door Slammed in Your Face

When a government website is inaccessible to a blind person, it isn’t a minor inconvenience. It is the digital equivalent of a flight of stairs at the entrance of a government building — it says, without apology, you do not belong here.

Seven out of ten blind people report being unable to access information and services through government websites. Two-thirds of internet transactions initiated by people with vision impairments end in abandonment because the websites they visit are not accessible enough.

Consider what those transactions represent. They are not online shopping. They are applications for Medicaid. They are searches for food assistance. They are registration for school services for disabled children. They are requests for healthcare accommodations. They are the mechanisms through which citizens — including disabled citizens who are fully taxpaying members of their communities — participate in public life.

Inaccessible websites and mobile apps can make it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to access government services, like ordering mail-in ballots or getting tax information, that are quickly and easily available to other members of the public online. They can keep people with disabilities from joining or fully participating in civic or other community events like town meetings or programs at their child’s school.

The harm is not abstract. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in at least seven states, blind residents said they were unable to register for the vaccine through their state or local governments without help. Phone alternatives, when available, were beset with long hold times and were not available at all hours like websites. “This is outrageous,” declared one disability advocate at the time, noting that blind people were being denied the ability to access something to get vaccinated during a public health emergency.

The Taxpayer Injustice

Here is something that should make every American’s blood boil, regardless of disability status.

The overwhelming majority of state and local government websites — the portals that serve parks departments, public schools, health departments, voting offices, libraries, transit authorities, courts, and social services — are funded by taxpayers. Property taxes. Sales taxes. Income taxes. Every resident pays into the system that builds and maintains these digital public squares.

Blind taxpayers pay these taxes. Deaf taxpayers pay these taxes. People with physical, cognitive, and neurological disabilities pay these taxes. And then, in far too many cases, they are locked out of the very websites and apps their money built.

This is not just bad policy. It is a profound ethical failure. It is taxation without representation. It is saying to an entire class of citizens: you will fund this, but you will not be allowed to use it.

The 2024 rule was an attempt to right this wrong — to ensure that when government spends public money on digital infrastructure, all the public can actually use it. Weakening or delaying this rule is a choice to perpetuate that injustice.

When Inaccessibility Has Real Consequences: Maria’s Story

Maria, a blind mother of two in a mid-sized American city, spent three days trying to access her daughter’s school district website after her daughter — who has a learning disability — was referred for a special education evaluation. The site, like most school district websites of its era, was built without accessibility in mind.

The forms to request records were PDF images — effectively photographs of documents, invisible to a screen reader. The contact directory was a graphic with no text alternative. The link to the district’s special education office was buried in a nested navigation menu that her screen reader could not parse. When she finally found a phone number and called, she was told to visit the website.

Maria’s story is representative. Administrative burdens — including inaccessible and poorly designed websites and complex application processes — cause real, lasting harm to disabled Americans, making it difficult to navigate a system that is supposed to help them cover basic necessities such as food, housing, and medical treatments. For a blind parent trying to advocate for a disabled child in a system that was never built with either of them in mind, the barriers compound each other into something that can feel insurmountable.

Maria eventually got help — from a sighted neighbor who could access the forms on her behalf. But consider what that means. A blind mother, exercising her legal rights on behalf of her disabled child, was forced to surrender her privacy and independence to a third party because a taxpayer-funded website could not do what basic accessibility standards would have required. Her child’s educational rights, her own dignity, and her family’s confidentiality were all casualties of inaccessibility.

When Accessibility Is Won: Angela Fowler’s Story

The story does not have to end in barriers. When accessibility is fought for and won, careers are saved, lives change, and the principle of equal access becomes real rather than rhetorical.

Angela Fowler had worked hard her entire life. She was a longtime member of the National Federation of the Blind, and she had earned a provisional job offer from an insurance carrier — contingent on passing California’s online insurance agent licensing exam. It should have been the next step in a promising career. Instead, it became a wall.

When Fowler sat down to take the state-administered exam, she discovered that the online testing platform used by the California Department of Insurance was completely inaccessible to her screen reader. She could not navigate it. She could not take the test. And when she asked the state to simply make the platform accessible — as California’s own disability access laws required — she was told she would first need to submit her private medical records to justify using a screen reader. Nondisabled applicants were not required to do anything of the sort. The process dragged on. The job offer she had worked toward disappeared.

In 2021, Fowler, joined by a second blind applicant named Miguel Mendez and later the National Federation of the Blind, filed suit against the California Department of Insurance and its testing vendor, PSI Services LLC. The case, Fowler et al. v. PSI Services LLC and California Department of Insurance, was a landmark disability rights action. It argued the obvious: that a state-run licensing examination system must be independently usable by blind applicants who use screen readers — without extra hoops, without burdensome medical documentation requirements, and without segregation from the testing experience available to everyone else.

In August 2024, the case settled. Under the agreement, the California Department of Insurance agreed to no longer require blind or low-vision test-takers who use screen access software to first provide medical documentation. Blind and low-vision test-takers who use screen readers gained access to the same examination scheduling options as those offered to others without disabilities.

NFB President Mark Riccobono called it a meaningful step toward a society that provides equal opportunity to everyone. Attorney Timothy Elder of TRE Legal Practice put it plainly: this case establishes that people who depend on assistive technology should not need a doctor’s note before they can expect an accessibly designed online exam.

Angela Fowler lost the job she had earned. But her fight — her refusal to accept that a government-run system could simply exclude her — ensured that the next blind person who wants to become an insurance agent in California will not face what she faced. That is what accessibility wins look like. That is what is at stake.

The 2024 rule was not asking for perfection. It was asking for a reasonable, internationally recognized standard. It was asking that government — of the people, by the people, for all of the people — actually serve all of the people.

A Word to Every Parent

If you have a disabled child, this message is for you.

You already know what it means to fight for your child in systems that were not built for them. You’ve sat in IEP meetings, argued with insurance companies, driven across town to accessible playgrounds, and spent countless hours researching, advocating, and never giving up.

The 2024 rule was a victory for you and your child. It said: the school district’s website that posts your child’s rights, their services, their calendar, their teacher contacts — that website must be accessible to you, whether you have low vision, blindness, cognitive differences, or any other disability. It said your child deserves parents who can access every digital tool that other parents take for granted.

If that rule is weakened or delayed, it is your child who loses. The IEP portal that you can’t open. The therapy scheduling app that won’t work with your screen reader. The school board meeting you couldn’t participate in because the registration link was broken.

Please. Request a meeting with OIRA. Tell them what your family’s digital access means to you. Tell them that your disabled child deserves parents who can fight for them with the same tools as everyone else.

Request a meeting here.

A Word to Every Friend and Ally

If you have a disabled friend — someone you love, laugh with, and care about — and you call yourself their ally, this is the moment that word is tested.

Disability is not a narrative device. It is not a cause for pity. It is a part of human experience shared by one in four Americans, including people who are brilliant, creative, funny, accomplished, and fully deserving of every digital door that the rest of the world walks through without a second thought.

When your blind friend cannot apply for transit benefits on her phone because the app is inaccessible, she is not experiencing a personal inconvenience. She is experiencing systematic exclusion. When your deaf colleague cannot watch the captionless public health video his county just posted, he is being told — by his own government — that he is not important enough to include.

Allyship means showing up when the stakes are real, not just retweeting hashtags. Requesting a five-minute virtual meeting with a federal regulatory office is one of the lowest-barrier, highest-impact things you can do right now for every disabled person in your life.

Do it because you love them. Do it because they would do it for you.

A Word to Teachers, Educators, and Healthcare Workers

You chose your profession because you believe in the dignity and potential of every person you serve. Every day, you work to ensure that students with disabilities get the education they deserve, that patients with disabilities receive the care they need.

But your work is undermined when the digital tools that are supposed to support it are inaccessible. A teacher of blind students who cannot access the district’s curriculum portal. A school counselor who cannot help a deaf student register for services online. A social worker who cannot guide a disabled client through a state benefits application because the site won’t work with assistive technology.

The 2024 rule would have made these failures less common. Weakening it makes them more so.

You have professional standing. You have community standing. A message from an educator or healthcare provider to OIRA carries weight. Please use it.

A Word to Religious Leaders — and to the Faithful

Every major world religion calls its followers to care for the vulnerable, to remove obstacles from the paths of those who struggle, and to treat all people as beings of sacred worth.

The Hebrew Bible commands, in Leviticus 19:14: “You shall not curse the deaf or place a stumbling block before the blind.” Jewish tradition teaches that stumbling blocks come in many forms — from inaccessible buildings to health care that is harder to access — and that we are obligated to remove them. The Torah repeatedly instructs: “If there be among you a person with needs, you shall not harden your heart, but you shall surely open your hand.” (Deuteronomy 15:7)

The Gospel of Luke records Jesus saying that when you give a feast, you should invite those who cannot repay you — the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind — “and you will be blessed.” (Luke 14:13–14) In Matthew 25:40, Jesus declares: “Whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Turning away from the exclusion of disabled people is, in this framework, turning away from Christ himself.

In Islamic teaching, the Prophet Muhammad said: “If you want to find me, find me amongst the weak, because you are not given victory or aid from Allah except by the way that you treat those who are weak and oppressed.” The Quran directly addresses the treatment of blind people: in Surah Abasa (80:1–10), Allah rebukes the Prophet for turning away from a blind man who came seeking knowledge, teaching that every person — regardless of ability — deserves full attention and dignity. A Hadith states: “Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person away from his path” (Sunan Abu Dawud 2594) — understood both as an individual prohibition and a communal warning: a society that does not respect or care for those with special needs will be cursed.

In Buddhist teaching, karuna — compassion — is one of the four divine abodes, a foundational virtue applied without distinction to all beings. The Hindu concept of seva, selfless service, calls the faithful to act on behalf of those who are vulnerable. In the Sikh tradition, sewa — selfless service — is among the highest moral obligations.

If your faith calls you to love your neighbor, then your neighbor includes every blind person who cannot open a government website, every deaf person who cannot watch a public health video without captions, every person with a cognitive disability who cannot navigate a form that was built without them in mind.

Religious leaders: preach this. Organize your congregations. Help your laypeople understand that accessibility is a moral issue, not a technical one. Encourage every member of your community to request a meeting with OIRA. This is the work of faith made concrete.

What You Need to Do Right Now

Requesting a meeting with OIRA is straightforward. Here is how:

  1. Go to this link: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eo/neweomeeting?rin=1190-AA82
  2. Provide your name, email, and phone number. You will receive a confirmation with a link to schedule your virtual meeting.
  3. When prompted, describe what you will present. You do not need legal language. You do not need to be an expert. Write in plain language. You might say things like:
    • How inaccessible government websites have affected you or your family member
    • Why the April 2026 deadline matters and should not be extended
    • What specific government services — parks, schools, libraries, health departments, voting — you depend on and need to be accessible
    • That the DOJ has recognized since 2003 that government websites must be accessible under the ADA, and this rule simply puts concrete standards to a long-standing obligation
    • That many state and local governments are already in compliance with the rule — and that following it has actually helped lower their costs over time
  4. You can request a meeting as an individual or on behalf of an organization. Both matter. The more voices, the stronger the record.
  5. Share this article. Send it to parents, teachers, pastors, imams, rabbis, priests, coaches, neighbors, and friends. Post it on social media. Read it aloud to someone who cannot read it themselves. The power of this moment lies entirely in how many people choose to show up.

The Rule Is Still the Rule — Until It Isn’t

It bears repeating: as of the publication of this article, the 2024 Title II accessibility rule is still in effect. The ADA still requires that state and local government websites and apps be accessible to disabled people. No change has yet been made.

But “not yet” is not “never.” An Interim Final Rule process moves quickly. Changes could come before the April 24 deadline. The window for public voices to be heard is narrow.

We have waited long enough. Disabled people have waited decades for a digital world that includes them. We have watched as every other aspect of public life went online — voting, education, healthcare, civic participation — and watched as too much of it was built without us.

We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for access to what everyone else already has.

We are asking for the right to open the door.

Please, request your meeting today. For yourself. For your child. For your friend. For your neighbor. For the blind grandmother who cannot access her county health department’s website. For the deaf father who cannot watch the public school board meeting. For every disabled person who has ever stared at a screen that stared back — blank, impassable, indifferent.

This is the moment. The door is still open. Let’s make sure it stays that way.

Request Your OIRA Meeting Now →

Blind Access Journal covers accessibility, disability rights, and assistive technology. We are grateful to disability rights attorney Lainey Feingold, whose legal analysis at lflegal.com provided essential background for this article. We encourage all readers to visit her site for in-depth legal context and additional resources.

The Americans with Disabilities Act continues to require accessible websites and apps regardless of any changes to the 2024 rule. The fight for digital inclusion continues.

Sources

  1. Feingold, Lainey. “Tell the Federal Government Not to Change the Title II Accessibility Regulations.” Law Office of Lainey Feingold, March 2, 2026. https://www.lflegal.com/2026/03/title-ii-action-needed/
  2. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). “Pending EO 12866 Regulatory Review — RIN 1190-AA82.” Reginfo.gov, February 13, 2026. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=1282112
  3. OIRA Meeting Request Portal — EO 12866 Virtual Meeting Request (RIN 1190-AA82). https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eo/neweomeeting?rin=1190-AA82
  4. U.S. Department of Justice. “Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities — Final Rule.” Federal Register, April 24, 2024. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state-and-local-government-entities
  5. Settlement Agreement: Fowler v. PSIhttps://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Settlement-Agreement-Fowler_fully-executed_Accessible.pdf
  6. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), June 5, 2018. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
  7. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Leviticus 19:14. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/leviticus/19-14.htm
  8. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Deuteronomy 15:7. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/deuteronomy/15-7.htm
  9. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Luke 14:13–14. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/luke/14-13.htm
  10. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Matthew 25:40. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/25-40.htm
  11. The Quran. Surah Abasa (80:1–10). Quran.com. https://quran.com/80
  12. Hadith. Sunan Abu Dawud 2594: “Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person away from his path.” Sunnah.com. https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2594
  13. Hadith. Narrated by Abu Darda: Prophet Muhammad on seeking victory through the weak and oppressed. Sunan Abu Dawud 2594. Sunnah.com. https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2594
  14. Feingold, Lainey. “Title II Web and Mobile Technical Accessibility Standards: History + Current Status.” Law Office of Lainey Feingold, originally published 2022, updated 2026. https://www.lflegal.com/2022/08/doj-web-regs-announce/

Random Accessibility Thoughts: We Blind People Need to Change the Path of Least Resistance

by

When I was 13 years old, all the way back in 1986, I learned exactly how horrible some people were when I found out the principal of my local high school was not going to let me enroll because of my blindness. She wondered things like, “how would he use the bathroom” and thought I should stay at the school for the blind, which she determined to be the “least restrictive environment” for my educational needs.

This discrimination was ultimately put down, and my local school district had to pay for me to attend public school in another district where I was actually wanted, thanks to the support of family and friends and a hard fought legal battle won on my behalf by the National Federation of the Blind.

Despite this victory, and my subsequent educational success in high school, I lost a lot of my innocence and my ears were forced wide open. I realized, once and for all, that my blindness really did set me apart from the rest of the world and that I would be constantly forced to prove my worth as a human being over and over again for anything I wanted to accomplish. I quickly decided there was an “us vs. them” scenario with “us” being myself and others like me, my blind brothers and sisters, and “them” being the sighted people comprising the rest of the world around me. At age 13, it was already war time!

Then, just one year later, in 1987, I got my first computer, an old Apple 2E with an Echo speech synthesizer! It even came with a 1200 baud modem! It was almost immediately followed by the awesome, revolutionary Braille ‘n Speak note taking device by Blazie Engineering!

I quickly discovered the incredible potential for computer technology to level the playing field for blind people like me. As I integrated technology into my life, I found it enabled a vast amount of communication and greater information access. I could complete the majority of my homework on the long car rides home from school. I could read some books, especially those on technology, using a brand-new service called Computerized Books for the Blind (CBFB). I could communicate with blind and sighted people on computer bulletin board systems on terms of equality. I could even, finally, do my own logging of the contacts I made on amateur radio, saying “goodbye” to static paper logs written with my Perkins Braille Writer and unweildy tape recordings my mom manually wrote into a printed logbook.

In the late 1980s, as I progressed through high school and enhanced my technology skills, I thought I was on top of the world and I just knew there wasn’t anything a blind person couldn’t do if only they set their mind to it and used the necessary technology. While sighted students were still plodding along with pencil and paper, I was taking better and quicker notes on my Braille ‘n Speak. While some Braille books were still available from several sources in the older transcribed format, we started scanning, transcribing and Brailling our own books using technology. With floppy disk, Braille ‘n Speak and the accompanying serial cable in hand, I was the mad scientist around school, hooking up my gizmos to the various IBM computers around school so I could enjoy their text-based user interfaces largely on terms of equality with my sighted peers. In conjunction with my talking radios, I could hook up my computer and enjoy packet radio just like my fellow amateur radio operators around the world.

In this scenario, in any situation where I found I really needed sight in order to accomplish something, I generally found an available sighted person willing to read something to me, because, I knew, thanks to the philosophy instilled in me through my association with the National Federation of the Blind, my blindness wouldn’t stop me from doing anything I set my mind to accomplish.

Sadly, while enjoying my text-based technology, I began to realize the sighted world was leaving us behind. While we blind people clung onto DOS, sighted people moved to Windows. As sighted people embraced the Internet, the old systems like command-line shell accounts, FTP, Gopher and text-based email moved onto the World Wide Web. While we plodded along with our text-based Lynx web browser, sighted people moved on to NCSA, Netscape, Internet Explorer and, finally, to the browsers we know today. As ebooks finally became normalized in the sighted world, blind people got left behind through the use of inaccessible, protective wrappings around information that should have otherwise been accessible.

Fast forward to today, 2018, 31 years after I got my first computer… I think we have another chance at truly equal accessibility, but will we insist on taking it for ourselves?

As I see it, we blind people enjoy the following technology advancements which should help us catch up to the sighted world, if not actually compete with the sighted on terms of equality once in awhile:

  • The free, open-source Nonvisual Desktop Access (NVDA) screen reader makes computer technology more affordable and accessible to more blind people than it has ever been before.
  • Popular operating systems including Android, iOS, Mac OS and Windows all now feature built-in screen readers blind people can use out of the box without the need to purchase and install a separate, 3rd-party solution.
  • Internationally-recognized guidelines, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, provide website developers with the framework they can follow in order to insure their sites are accessible to people with disabilities.
  • Mainstream technology companies, including Adobe, Apple, Google and Microsoft, all provide best practices and tools for insuring the content created using their solutions is accessible to people with disabilities.
  • Legislation, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act in the United States, as well as many other similar laws around the world, are avenues we can use to obtain equal accessibility as a human right.
  • And, finally, when everything else fails, we now have visual-interpreting services such as Aira and Be My Eyes, where we can go back to a scenario where we employ sighted readers to access critical information we’re just not going to get any other way.

Despite all these assets at our disposal, it sadly seems the world around us remains largely inaccessible…

  • The staff at doctor’s offices, hospitals and other healthcare facilities usually whine about HIPAA and being too busy when they are asked to provide accessible, electronic medical records or even, all too frequently, to help us fill out their inaccessible paperwork.
  • Many blind college students still can’t gain access to their textbooks on time because they are not available in an accessible format they can read.
  • There are still lots of blind people who can’t get hired, are unable to perform important parts of their jobs or find themselves left out of promotional opportunities due to the use of inaccessible workplace apps, websites and other forms of information technology.
  • Banks, health insurance companies, and a myriad of other private businesses often still communicate with their customers using inaccessible websites, send inaccessible critical correspondence and insist on inaccessible, obsolete methods of communication without providing reasonable accommodations to blind customers.
  • Many grocery delivery services, stores and other e-commerce companies continue to insist on using inaccessible apps and websites, despite the plethora of options available for making them accessible.
  • Even some companies with an apparently forward-looking approach to accessibility often fail to take care of obvious accessibility issues that lock us out, what I call the accessibility low-hanging fruit, choosing instead to focus on catchy, fancy, whiz-bang accessibility features while hiding behind their “accessibility teams” who rarely, if ever, respond to genuine feedback about their inaccessibility.
  • Even seemingly regulated federal and state government agencies continue to communicate using inaccessible websites, send inaccessible critical correspondence and insist on inaccessible, obsolete methods of communication without providing reasonable accommodations to blind people.

As the available information and technology for making things accessible improves on a daily basis, I become angrier and angrier each time I encounter yet another inexcusable accessibility barrier. As a blind person who is not broken and is, in fact, a full human being with the same responsibilities, rights and intrinsic value as that sighted person over there, I vow to continue fighting the good, accessibility, fight and I am always looking for a few good warriors to join me.

So, this is all very disappointing and discouraging, isn’t it? What can, or must, we do when we encounter accessibility issues that discriminate against us and lock us out of full and equal participation? Here are just a few ideas:

  • Contact a company on social media services, such as Facebook or Twitter, pointing out the accessibility issues and asking that they be directly addressed.
  • Write and send a certified letter to a company’s CEO pointing out accessibility concerns, providing possible solutions and asking him or her to direct the prompt, ongoing resolution of those concerns in a sustainable manner.
  • Engage in structured negotiations or take other legal action against a company as you deem appropriate after trying other, less drastic methods first.
  • Publicly call out all organizations doing business specifically in the blind community whenever you encounter accessibility barriers, as the leadership of these organizations should always know better.

So, in conclusion, finally… I think there are two ways we can go down the road of better accessibility: optimistic and pessimistic. We should try the optimistic approach first: simply politely point out the accessibility barrier(s), provide possible solutions if you have some good ideas and directly ask for prompt, sustainable resolution… But, if that optimistic approach does not work, we should be willing to go to war… In the pessimistic approach, we have determined that the gloves are off and playing the nice guy is no longer going to work. As I see it, the key goal of this approach is simply to change the perceived path of least resistance from one of inaccessibility and ignoring us to one of greater accessibility and attention to our feedback. This pessimistic, or cynical, approach involves taking complicated, difficult and often dramatic steps such as digging in by not doing what is asked in the inaccessible manner, legal action, protesting at the CEO’s office or in the streets and consistent public call-outs of the organizations ongoing wrongdoing.

Let’s all figure out how to work together, as blind brothers and sisters, to break down, using all means necessary, the accessibility barriers that hold us back from living the lives we want.

There Should be Compensation and Remediation for the Real Damages Inaccessibility Causes

by

I just thought I would respond to Chris Hofstader’s excellent article Stop The ADA Trolls.

While I certainly agree we shouldn’t be supporting these accessibility lawsuit trolls, I also do not feel we should be defending companies that have less-than-stellar
accessibility records. If a company has consistently failed to acknowledge accessibility advocacy and act positively to address accessibility concerns,
why shouldn’t we just leave them to be eaten by the wolves?

You see… I believe there are real damages caused by inaccessibility, and I feel we should, actually, consider a more aggressive approach toward companies
that consistently ignore us.

Blind people lose their jobs due to inaccessible software. Blind children miss out on educational opportunities due to inaccessible educational technology used in the classroom. Inaccessible apps in the new sharing economy result in a complete denial of service, which clearly counts as discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act here in the United States and other similar laws around the world. There are so many other inexcusable ways blind people are excluded because of inaccessibility. How can we put a stop to this discrimination?

Here’s how I see all this working:

  1. Blind people have been consistently advocating with a company for full inclusion / equal accessibility, but the advocacy has been completely or substantively ignored.
  2. A case is opened and documented with an accessibility advocacy clearinghouse that tracks and reports accessibility advocacy efforts and their results, or lack of effective action.
  3. A letter is sent to the company’s CEO outlining the concerns and clearly asking for equal accessibility.
  4. One or more blind persons file a lawsuit against the offending company asking for equal accessibility and for serious monetary damages, including not only the inaccessibility itself, but also for the emotional distress / pain and suffering it has caused.
  5. The lawfirm filing the suit subpoenas evidence, including the documentation from the case filed in step 2 and the letter sent in step 3.
  6. The process continues, on and on, with company after company, in a systematic and transparent manner, until we, possibly, achieve real results!

That’s right! I think the lawsuits should most certainly be filed, because companies are wrong to continue excluding us, but I think it should all be done
in a clear, above-board manner.

How Do We Effectively Educate the Public and Combat False Assumptions About Accessibility?

by

I just finished reading Independent Street : Is Your Web Site Blind-Friendly? How to Avoid a Lawsuit by Wendy Bounds. While Wendy provided a good overview of the issues surrounding the law and the need for web site accessibility, I found many of the comments to be rather shocking! How do we effectively carry out the monumental task of educating the public at large and those who could become part of the accessible solution of the future? How can we show the world that accessibility is a good idea and that, in most cases, becoming accessible doesn’t have to represent a huge expense? Just as most of us recognize the inherent human rights of other populations, such as African-Americans and women, we must recognize that accessibility is a right and a necessity in order for those of us with disabilities to be participating, productive members of society. I have just posted my own comment to this article and ask that each and every one of you who read Blind Access Journal please do likewise. It may also be helpful to check out Mike Calvo’s excellent response to the article and many of its associated comments. We must all do our part to get out the good word about accessibility.

The Heart of Accessibility Evangelism

by

I think we all recognize that, in many cases, there simply is not a strong bottom-line business reason for companies (either assistive technology or mainstream) to work hard on making sure their technologies function in ways that are in the best interests of all users, including those of us whom happen to be blind. There are, thus, only two major levers available to us in our advocacy efforts. The first involves the fact that, in our society, accessibility is simply the right thing to do. This approach involves the “heart” of accessibility evangelism. The second approach involves making a business case for accessibility based on the application or presumed applicability of one or more disability rights laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act. In this rather rough approach, accessibility is ultimately forced as an alternative that is less expensive than continuing to ignore our needs.

In the case of screen readers, the economic incentive is simply to ensure the product works with Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office and the Windows operating system. Any additional capabilities, especially with respect to custom job related applications like Salesforce.com and Siebel, is viewed as icing on the cake. Precious little effort is expended on the part of assistive technology companies to ensure the usability of many customer relationship management (CRM) and other similarly critical application infrastructures required in today’s workplaces. How many jobs do you know about where use of e-mail, spreadsheets, web browsing and word processing are all that’s required in order for a qualified employee to conduct the duties of the position?

Most mainstream technology companies claim there’s little or no real business incentive to make their products and services accessible to us. After all, blind people represent less than a percent of the world’s population and there’s just not enough money in it for companies to justify the expense. Only the possibility of legal action or the presumed applicability of some Federal laws make the expense of accessibility less than the potential loss of business from government agencies.

As we all can see, the current state of affairs remains bleak. It has been this way for a long time now, yet the problem may accelerate due to the ever-widening gap between the capabilities of increasingly sophisticated and visually oriented mainstream technologies with respect to the rather limited nature of current screen reading technology for the blind. My apologies if this offends, but it is, ultimately, the truth against which I would invite any credible challenge.

As we continue to advocate for mainstream technology companies to reasonably accomodate our needs for equal access to the technologies in our daily lives, on the job and in the classroom, we must also simultaneously advocate for our assistive technology companies to focus on innovation, rolling out screen readers that can meet the challenge of the current and future world of technology, much of which continues to be developed by people who have absolutely no inclination toward accomodating us. It is wonderful when assistive technology and the mainstream computer industry can work together, meeting one another halfway in order to provide access, but the days of screen reader developers relying on this approach have been numbered for quite sometime in all but a precious few cases.

As we insist on innovation which will permit us to continue learning and making a living, we are going to have to devise new methods of accessibility advocacy. Our approaches must convince the decision-makers in the technology industry that at least one of the following statements is true:

  1. Conscience dictates that delivering accessibility is simply the “right thing” to do.
  2. The presence or absence of accessible technology often makes the difference between whether or not a blind person is able to fill a particular position in a company or take advantage of an educational opportunity.
  3. It is better to help blind people than it is to hurt, ignore or otherwise leave us out in the cold.
  4. Accessibility is a good thing to do from a media or public relations perspective.
  5. Accessibility can represent an “interesting” project to undertake from a development point of view.
  6. A small increase in the customer base will result when products and services are made accessible to blind computer users.
  7. Blind customers of companies who take the effort and time to address our needs tend to be among the most loyal portion of the company’s overall customer base.
  8. Sighted people who care about what happens to their blind colleagues, friends and relatives may prefer doing business with companies who do the “right thing” with respect to accessibility.
  9. Religion may indirectly dictate that blind people should be afforded equal access to information.
  10. The laws in several nations of the world directly or indirectly mandate a certain level of accessibility for people with disabilities.

It is important to note that only four of the items (customer loyalty, increased customer numbers, laws and public relations) on this “accessibility evangelism top ten” list can be said to relate directly to business considerations. The rest relate to the heart. What does a person believe to be the “right thing” to do with respect to their emotional make up as well as their logical mind? Should we devise ways to shame those who would ignore us into doing the right thing? Would a person ignore the needs of their spouse, relative, close friend or colleague should they become blind? How would such a person want to see their blind spouse treated? Wouldn’t they insist on reasonable accomodations? Should we place a bit more emphasis on the “heart” of accessibility evangelism? Your thoughts are welcome as always in the form of a comment to this article.

Blind Citizen Not Allowed to Tour USS John F. Kennedy Aircraft Carrier

by

On Sunday, March 4, my friend Mika Pyyhkala was not permitted to participate in a public tour of the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier in Boston Harbour. Age old, unproven stereotypes concerning possible safety concerns were trotted out as the reason. The National Federation of the Blind has become involved in this incident on Mika’s behalf. The organization issued the following press release vowing to take action.

Numerous articles have been written in newspapers and posted on blogs concerning this issue, but I think it is absolutely critical that the most important point not become lost. Blindness, by itself, has not ever been proven to present any more or less of a safety concern in participation in any particular activity than it is for an average sighted person. It has, in fact, been my personal experience that any safety issues that have arisen concerning my blindness have often involved the lack of attention on the part of one or more sighted people. For example, I was hit by a sighted driver of a truck who was in a hurry and talking on his cell phone while crossing a street in February of 1997. Right now, we’re talking about the military’s denial of a tour of an aircraft carrier. But, we could just as easily be talking about a Child Protective Services agency taking a child away from his or her parents simply because those parents happen to be blind. We all take our chances as we live, and safety concerns surrounding blindness are most often simply unproven, and probably unprovable, stereotypes not based in fact.

Aside from the initial stereotypical safety concerns, the U.S. Navy officer was quick to emphasize the large number of sighted people being allowed to participate in the tour and the lack of an available person to accompany Mika. This concept that it is somehow acceptable to pat us on the head and toss us aside without a thought simply because it is inconvenient or people are simply “too busy” to bother with us is absolutely wrong and should be found personally offensive by all blind human beings. This “too busy” situation is encountered entirely too often when blindness involves the need for reasonable accomodations in order to fully participate. I have dealt with staff in doctor’s offices who attempted, totally without success due to my persistence, to avoid helping me with paperwork by claiming to be “too busy” to help. Sometimes, such people expect me to be accompanied by a sighted person who can act as a “caregiver” with whom they would probably feel more comfortable dealing rather than bothering with me directly.

As a blind community, whether aligned with ACB, NFB or neither consumer organization, we must do everything possible to vigorously confront the safety stereotype and the improper “too busy” mentality that is too frequently used to deny us access. I hope ACB and NFB will find a way to join forces in an attempt to challenge the military on this issue from a public relations perspective. The Navy should apologize to Mika for the initial outright denial of access and provide him with a full private tour of the USS John F. Kennedy. Members of the media should accompany Mika to document his safe, successful tour of the ship.