4 ms·

I believe this would violate ease-of-access rules - screen readers would have to be able to tell a user, so if an image is used, the alt/title tag would be set

I believe this would violate ease-of-access rules - screen readers would have to be able to tell a user, so if an image is used, the alt/title tag would be set to 'sponsored'.

downandout 10y ago
I suppose, but that's not a legal issue, that's a usability issue. There's no law that says I have to use alt/title tags.
- falcolas 10y ago
  The ADA might want to disagree with you: "The Department is currently developing regulations specifically addressing the accessibility of goods and services offered via the web by entities covered by the ADA. The fact that the regulatory process is not yet complete in no way indicates that web services are not already covered by title III." — Statement of Interest of the United States Department of Justice in NAD v. Netflix (page 10)
  - downandout 10y ago
    Title tags are not appropriate for every image, and no judge is going to wade into the murky waters of deciding which images need them or not.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      If the title tag which denotes that it's sponsored content, as required by another government agency, you can easily assume that yes, a judge will care.
  - downandout 10y ago
    > by entities covered by the ADA Is Facebook covered by the ADA? I can't imagine that they are, as it is not an essential service. According to [1]: "The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, if the government entities receive federal funding, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 generally require that state and local governments provide qualified individuals with disabilities equal access to their programs, services, or activities unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of their programs, services, or activities or would impose an undue burden". But that has nothing to do with private organizations that are not receiving federal funding or providing access to government funded services. [1] https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm
    - falcolas 10y ago
      You may notice that the quote in my original post is from the DoJ to Netflix. If Netflix is subject, why wouldn't Facebook be? The ADA also applies to privately owned stores as well, so there is certainly precedent. Ever wonder why your office building has a certain number of handicapped parking spots in its parking lot? The ADA is why.
      - downandout 10y ago
        What you're referring to is not a court ruling, but rather an opinion letter penned by the DOJ in a case to which it was not even a party. It holds no legal weight.
        falcolas 10y ago
        That courts are current split on whether it applies or not indicates that there is some weight to the DOJ's opinion. That Netflix decided to ultimately settle instead of forcing the issue does not speak well of their confidence in succeeding (or their willingness to bear the costs of getting to a decision). However it ends up finally playing out in the courts, if Facebook were to fail to properly label sponsored content in tags, you can bet someone will take them to court over it.
  - downandout 10y ago
    The 9th circuit has ruled that the ADA does not apply to web-only businesses (in the very case you cited). http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/9th-circuit-rules-netflix-isnt-subject-to-disability-law/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/9th-circuit-rules...
    - falcolas 10y ago
      It also highlights that other courts have ruled that it does apply; it probably won't be settled until someone takes it to the Supreme Court. That Netflix did not attempt to speaks a bit to their confidence in succeeding at that level.
      - downandout 10y ago
        Netflix won the case, so they wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. Their opponent could have appealed to the Supreme Court, since they wound up the loser in the case, but they didn't - either because they ran out of money or didn't believe they would win.
        falcolas 10y ago
        From your own link: After the company lost the initial motion, Netflix settled the case with NAD, agreeing to pay $750,000 in legal fees and caption all of its videos by the year 2014.
- alexbecker 10y ago
  IANAL, but I was under the impression that the Americans with Disabilities Act can be applied to some websites to impose just such a requirement.
  - downandout 10y ago
    Yes. Those would be government websites providing essential services. Not privately owned and operated websites.

I believe this would violate ease-of-access rules - screen readers would have to be able to tell a user, so if an image is used, the alt/title tag would be set to 'sponsored'.

downandout 10y ago

I suppose, but that's not a legal issue, that's a usability issue. There's no law that says I have to use alt/title tags.

falcolas 10y ago
The ADA might want to disagree with you: "The Department is currently developing regulations specifically addressing the accessibility of goods and services offered via the web by entities covered by the ADA. The fact that the regulatory process is not yet complete in no way indicates that web services are not already covered by title III." — Statement of Interest of the United States Department of Justice in NAD v. Netflix (page 10)
- downandout 10y ago
  Title tags are not appropriate for every image, and no judge is going to wade into the murky waters of deciding which images need them or not.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    If the title tag which denotes that it's sponsored content, as required by another government agency, you can easily assume that yes, a judge will care.
- downandout 10y ago
  > by entities covered by the ADA Is Facebook covered by the ADA? I can't imagine that they are, as it is not an essential service. According to [1]: "The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, if the government entities receive federal funding, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 generally require that state and local governments provide qualified individuals with disabilities equal access to their programs, services, or activities unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of their programs, services, or activities or would impose an undue burden". But that has nothing to do with private organizations that are not receiving federal funding or providing access to government funded services. [1] https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm
  - falcolas 10y ago
    You may notice that the quote in my original post is from the DoJ to Netflix. If Netflix is subject, why wouldn't Facebook be? The ADA also applies to privately owned stores as well, so there is certainly precedent. Ever wonder why your office building has a certain number of handicapped parking spots in its parking lot? The ADA is why.
    - downandout 10y ago
      What you're referring to is not a court ruling, but rather an opinion letter penned by the DOJ in a case to which it was not even a party. It holds no legal weight.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        That courts are current split on whether it applies or not indicates that there is some weight to the DOJ's opinion. That Netflix decided to ultimately settle instead of forcing the issue does not speak well of their confidence in succeeding (or their willingness to bear the costs of getting to a decision). However it ends up finally playing out in the courts, if Facebook were to fail to properly label sponsored content in tags, you can bet someone will take them to court over it.
- downandout 10y ago
  The 9th circuit has ruled that the ADA does not apply to web-only businesses (in the very case you cited). http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/9th-circuit-rules-netflix-isnt-subject-to-disability-law/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/9th-circuit-rules...
  - falcolas 10y ago
    It also highlights that other courts have ruled that it does apply; it probably won't be settled until someone takes it to the Supreme Court. That Netflix did not attempt to speaks a bit to their confidence in succeeding at that level.
    - downandout 10y ago
      Netflix won the case, so they wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. Their opponent could have appealed to the Supreme Court, since they wound up the loser in the case, but they didn't - either because they ran out of money or didn't believe they would win.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        From your own link: After the company lost the initial motion, Netflix settled the case with NAD, agreeing to pay $750,000 in legal fees and caption all of its videos by the year 2014.
alexbecker 10y ago
IANAL, but I was under the impression that the Americans with Disabilities Act can be applied to some websites to impose just such a requirement.
- downandout 10y ago
  Yes. Those would be government websites providing essential services. Not privately owned and operated websites.