[nabentre] Website Accessibility For Contracted Salespersons And Franchisees

[Kane Brolin]

On 11/24/15, Lauren Merryfield via nabentre <nabentre at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> I know what you mean about companies supposedly "upgrading" and becoming
> inaccessible. I tried and tried to get Thirty-One Gifts to make, and keep,
> their website accessible.  ...  Their attitude seemed to be that they couldn't make
> changes for one person.

Lauren, this is truly maddening, especially when you deal with a
company that has recently made changes that made their Website less
accessible than before.  One person probably made the decision to
change the site's look and feel, without consulting their user base;
but they refuse to acknowledge the need for accessibility because
supposedly only "one person" wants it that way.  I have faced this
problem with some companies I've contracted for in the past.  I'm
still unclear as to how enforceable Section 504 and Section 508 are
when one is a disabled contractor, not an employee; I sense most of
the contract-hiring firms out there think it's not necessary to meet
any accessibility standard whatsoever, because they're contracting for
my services and not hiring me as an in-house employee--therefore, no
need for ADA compliance either.

I think that there is hope, though.  Overall this accessibility
standard will become more universally met--not because of us who are
blind, but because there is increasing pressure on commercial firms to
make their sites mobile-friendly.  Most people now access the Web
using tablets or smartphones, not laptops or full-sized desktop
computers.  So a lot of the Java, Adobe Flash, and other garbage that
used to populate Webpages is disappearing, as phones and tablets
aren't very good at picking up on these gimmicks.  It is commercial
considerations that are driving this trend, because I am told that
search engines are rating Websites a lot more highly if those sites
are optimized for mobile access, all other factors being equal.

Cheers,

-Kane