Not signed in (Sign In)
A podcast and forum for those who design, develop and run websites.
Boagworld is not just a web design podcast, it is also a thriving online community. Whether you build, design or run websites there are always people here to help. Whatever your question there is sure to be somebody with the answer.
- subscribe via itunes
- subscribe via rss
- or get blog posts by email
Welcome, Guest
Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
To many people, accessibility means "making websites that aren't illegal under disability discrimination legislation".
In this case, it's important to consider what is, and what isn't a disability.
Most books on accessibility mention colourblindness, however I'm not convinced it's a disability, at least in UK law.
According to the UK Government:The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
For the purposes of the Act:- substantial means neither minor nor trivial
- long term means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions)
- normal day-to-day activities include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping
- a normal day-to-day activity must affect one of the 'capacities' listed in the Act which include mobility, manual dexterity, speech, hearing, sight and memory
Under this definition, I'm of the opinion that colourblindness is NOT a disability, as it doesn't affect your ability to carry out normal day to day activities.
In other words, being blind affects your ability to go shopping or walk up stairs - whereas being colourblind doesn't.
If I'm right on this, then if you're just interested in having an accessible site in order to meet your legal duties, rather than for business reasons or as a moral imperative, then you wouldn't have to consider colourblindess when you're designing your website.
Now, I'm of the opinion that there are other good reasons for being accessible and therefore I'd recommend trying to make your site as accessible to people as possible - regardless of whether you had to or not.
However, if I was asked by a client if they had to consider colourblindess in order to meet their legal obligations (in the UK) I'd have to say that at the moment, I don't think they would.
What do you think? -
Under this definition, I'm of the opinion that colourblindness is NOT a disability, as it doesn't affect your ability to carry out normal day to day activities. In other words, being blind affects your ability to go shopping or walk up stairs - whereas being colourblind doesn't.
Driving? Could a colour blind user potentially not be able to drive because of distinguising between traffic lights? Perhaps not. What if the person was elderly, didn't have means of transport and wanted to order items online. They couldn't easily use the site because they couldn't decipher which buttons to click on because of the text colour contrast. Does shopping online include day-to-day shopping activities?
If you're splitting hairs, then I agree, colour blindness is not explicitly defined as a "disability". But in a court of law there's no reason why a judge might not interpret the DDA in a similar manner if the case had sufficient merrit and alter the Act by precedent.
It's a good point you make. -
But in a court of law there's no reason why a judge might not interpret the DDA in a similar manner if the case had sufficient merrit and alter the Act by precedent.
I don't think Judges don't work like that - although I do think there could come a point where online shopping is considered sufficiently "day-to-day" that it could count. -
Before moving into Learning Technology (current day job), I worked as an HR manager so have some experience of dealing with the DDA.
Colour blindness can be considered to be a disability within the terms of the DDA. But if a specific case went to court it would require a qualified medical opinion in order to decide if it should be considered a disability in that particular case.
The thing that makes dealing with the DDA so difficult is that each case is based on the test of 'reasonableness'. For example, if a large corporation ran a website that relied upon the colours red and green to indicate something, it may well be considerable reasonable that they produce an alternative format for colour blind users. However, if the same site was run by a small business it may well be considered unreasonable to ask them to provide an alternative because the time and cost involved would be disproportionately higher.
Contrary to some people's belief, the DDA doesn't always require you to provide identical services to disabled and non disabled consumers. A real (non-web) example that I can think of is the case of a shop that had the staff toilets and canteen upstairs. They then employed a wheelchair user who couldn't get to those facilities because of the stairs. Many people, assume that you would have to fit a lift (or stairlift) to get that person upstairs, but in this case it was considered reasonable to provide toilet facilities and a rest area (basically a room with tea making facilities) downstairs. Applying that same logic to the web you don't necessarily have to produce a website that is accessible to 100% of the population, if you provide a reasonable alternative.
So in web terms you may have some reason (I don't know what!) for producing some information in a manner not easily made accessible, but you would probably be ok as long as you provided it in and alternative format such as an accessible PDF.
However, if your business is the production of digital art (say for example you are a Flash designer, or a Photographer) you can quite reasonably be less concerned about accessibility for the visually impaired because there is no reasonable alternative. It would be like saying to David Hockney, hmm nice painting but where's the braille version?
My own view is that there would have to be a very compelling reason for not making things accessible, but if you absolutely can't then there are solutions. -
Colour blindness can be considered to be a disability within the terms of the DDA.
What makes you say that?
I totally agree with the rest of what you said, but this is the bit I'm really thinking about .. and the bit the rest of your argument rests on.
BTW - don't get me wrong, I'm passionate about accessibility - but I think it damages the cause of accessibility when people go around spreading half-truth and misinformation as though they were fact. Therefore I want to make sure my understanding of the area is correct. -
- CommentAuthorbill posters
- CommentTimeMay 12th 2007
Colour blindness is certainly open to being offered as an official 'disability' in the eyes of the DDA.
A case where a user with a form of colour vision deficiency had successfully sued a company on the grounds of the DDA would not alter the DDA. The DDA is not explicit about naming any form of disability, but leaves it open to case by case judgement.Meaning of "disability" and "disabled person".
1. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Provision within the W3C's WCAG 1.0 makes catering to colour-blind users a Priority 2 issue for images and a Priority 3 issue for text.
Still, the (low) priority of any given checkpoint doesn't ensure that it won't ever be successfully cited as grounds for a lawsuit.
Re: 'online shopping'…
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/95050--a.htm
(See also: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068)An Act to make it unlawful to discriminate against disabled persons in connection with employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services…
As a service provided to the public, shopping, online or offline, certainly falls under the jurisdiction of the DDA.
As there are many varieties of 'colour blindness', for a lawsuit to be successful, it would need to be proven that the form with which the user suffers has a directly detrimental effect on their ability to use the site against which the accusation of discrimination has been made (and that the site has not taken reasonable steps to provide access to users with said condition.)
To cover one's arse on this matter (or to put it another way, to cater to such users), it's increasingly being considered as sufficient, good practice to provide a high contrast, alternative stylesheet which users with colour vision deficiencies can select.
Alternatively, or possibly additionally, simply ensure that no key content such as links, warnings, etc… are differentiated solely by colour can be enough to ensure that sights with subtle combinations of colour for differentiation remain accessible and usable to users with forms of colour blindness.
Much can be done by ensuring that the site remains equally usable in the absence of stylesheets, bearing in mind that problems don't arise due to the use of particular colours, but through particular colour combinations which may lack contrast under certain conditions.
If you're concerned that you might be spreading half-truths and misinformation yourself, it's a good idea to read up at sites such as webcredible.co.uk and accessifyforum.com, the RNIB site, the DirectGov site or even the DDA itself (linked above).
Another piece of recommended reading would be the PAS 78 document, available for download via the DRC site. -
What makes you say that?
Working in HR meant getting some basic legal training in the areas of contract law, the law of tort, the DDA etc.
My view that colour blindness can be considered a disability in terms of the DDA is largely based on the fact that I was told that by a number of different Lawyers :-)
Anything at all that can in some way have a long term detrimental effect on someone's ability to carry out day to day activities can be considered a disability. Logically that must include colour blindness.BTW - don't get me wrong, I'm passionate about accessibility - but I think it damages the cause of accessibility when people go around spreading half-truth and misinformation as though they were fact. Therefore I want to make sure my understanding of the area is correct.
Likewise, but let's face it, this is a very complex area and we'll all get it wrong sometimes. (You've done it yourself in these very forums). That's why I'm trying to avoid giving any advice that says 'x is or isn't legal'. The best you can do is advise that something may or may not be in breach of the DDA, but the only way it's really going to get tested out is if someone takes legal action. -
Anything at all that can in some way have a long term detrimental effect on someone's ability to carry out day to day activities can be considered a disability. Logically that must include colour blindness.
If you've been told by lawyers, then I'll certainly take that on board. But I still don't get how colourblindness affects "day to day" activities.
My knowledge of the legislation and its implementation is that, while they don't name any specific disabilities, they're pretty tight on what counts as a day to day activity - and how badly you have to be affected.
For example, if you're able to walk into town to do your shopping then you couldn't claim to have mobility problems - it has to be so severe you can't walk up stair (or something similar).
What day to day activities can a colourblind person not do? -
If you've been told by lawyers, then I'll certainly take that on board. But I still don't get how colourblindness affects "day to day" activities.
They'll still be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, but we'll have to trust them until then :-)What day to day activities can a colourblind person not do?
I agree, it's very difficult to imagine. My dad has complete red/green colour blindness and I can't think of anything that he can't do.
I think you can draw a comparison with a birthmark. It's difficult to imagine what day to day activity would be effected by a birthmark, but that is something else that's also potentially covered by the DDA.For example, if you're able to walk into town to do your shopping then you couldn't claim to have mobility problems - it has to be so severe you can't walk up stair (or something similar).
Sort of. You could have mobility problems that stop you getting upstairs, but you may be able to use a powered wheelchair to get to the shops. If once you got there you couldn't get into the shops because they had steps, that would be a DDA issue.
The DDA relates to the 'provision of goods and services', so you can argue that shopping online would be a case where a day to day activity could be effected by colour blindness. But like you, try as I might I can't think of a real example!
The courts are very good at dealing with these kind of things in a common sense manner, and applying that test of reasonableness. Vertigo could definitely be covered under the DDA, but that doesn't mean it would be reasonable that all shops should be single storey.
The only time I've come across a real example of colour blindness being an issue, was some designs I had to approve for the intranet at my day job. I asked for them to be changed because there where a number of places where the contrast between text and background wasn't great enough and may have been a problem for colour blind users. But, my attention was drawn to them because the lack of contrast made them look pretty crappy whether you were colour blind or not! -
You could have mobility problems that stop you getting upstairs, but you may be able to use a powered wheelchair to get to the shops. If once you got there you couldn't get into the shops because they had steps, that would be a DDA issue.
I think I disagree with you on that.
I'm talking about the definition of a disability.
If you need to use a motor scooter to get to town, you're disabled whether you're using it or not and regardless of where you are.
Likewise, a deaf person is disabled even if they're using a hearing aid.
What I'm saying, is that regardless of where problems occur you're either disabled under the DDA or you aren't, at any given stage in your life.
Put it another way.
It would be illegal to say "I'm not giving you a job because you're in a wheelchair" (assuming I can't demonstrate reasonable obstacles to me doing so), whereas, to my knowledge, it wouldn't be illegal to say "I'm not giving you a job because you're a heroine addict", as drug addiction is specifically excluded from being a disability under the DDA.
What I'm suggesting, is that it would NOT be illegal for me to say to somebody "I'm not giving you a job because you're colourblind."
A bit mean and kind of pointless, certainly, but not illegal, at least under the DDA. -
What I'm saying, is that regardless of where problems occur you're either disabled under the DDA or you aren't, at any given stage in your life.
Yes and no :-) Sure, the disability exists no matter what the circumstances, but whether the DDA is relevant does depend on the circumstances. (Bear with me).
If you had a large birthmark on your face and I said I wasn't going to give you a job because I thought it might upset my customers, I would very probably be in breach of the DDA. However, it would be extremely difficult (impossible?) to argue that however I built my website you couldn't access it because of the birthmark. Same disability, different circumstances.It would be illegal to say "I'm not giving you a job because you're in a wheelchair" (assuming I can't demonstrate reasonable obstacles to me doing so), whereas, to my knowledge, it wouldn't be illegal to say "I'm not giving you a job because you're a heroine addict", as drug addiction is specifically excluded from being a disability under the DDA.
Agreed. But do bear in mind that although addictions such as drugs, tobacco and alcohol are excluded, conditions arising because of them are not. e.g. I can refuse you a job because you're an alcoholic, but I can't refuse you a job because you have cirrhosis of the liver as a result of being alcoholic. I'm not sure how much this links to colour blindness though.What I'm suggesting, is that it would NOT be illegal for me to say to somebody "I'm not giving you a job because you're colourblind."
I think it might, unless you could demonstrate why.
The Disability Rights Commisions has this to say about the use of websites in the recruitment process:Attention should be given to other design issues, such as the use of colour contrasts so that people with colour blindness can easily use the site, avoiding the use of small areas for links which make it difficult for people with restricted manual dexterity to navigate, and the provision of mouse-free navigation – again to ease navigation for people who find it difficult to make fine adjustments to their movements.
That kind of suggests that they consider colour blindness as a disability (although I must stress that is my interpretation).
I've also had a look at PAS 78 and the only reference I can find is in Annexe A, Section A.1 Vision Impairment, where it says "NOTE Because there are three main types of colour blindness it is unlikely that all problems would arise under user testing." So although it doesn't say much, the fact that it's mentioned would again suggest that it is being included as a potential disability.
I think the conclusion I'm starting to reach is that it could potentially be considered as a disability but the lack of any concrete examples or even suggested scenarios would suggest that it's something unlikely to occur in practice.
Only when someone actually takes legal action will we really find out the extent to which colour blindness is protected. The DDA is civil law, not criminal law, which means that it is likely to evolve over time as the judicial decision in each case sets precedent that will be followed in later cases. (As mentioned by Nick).
On Monday I'm going to go find one of the lawyers in our HR department and see what they think, and whether they know of any real examples.
You sure know how to ask difficult questions don't you rich! -
I sure do ;o)
If you had a large birthmark on your face and I said I wasn't going to give you a job because I thought it might upset my customers, I would very probably be in breach of the DDA.
Can you ask the lawyers about this, too?
I can't see how this would be a disability, under the DDA's definition.
Look at it another way, what WOULDN'T be a disability?
- What if I didn't give you a job because you were blond(e)?
- What about if I didn't give you a job because you were boring?
Boringness wouldn't be a disability because, although it probably lasts longer than 12 months, it doesn't affect your ability to carry out day to day tasks.
Therefore, I don't see the distinction between being boring and having a birthmark.
Both may be a pain for the person involved, but they're not disabilities, surely?
Being deaf or blind, on the other hand, are disabilities.
For that matter, being French or German isn't a disability. Nor is being Gay. If I refused to give you a job on the grounds you were a gay German, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be breaching the DDA. I'd be breaking the law, naturally, but not the DDA.
My point is that just because something may be discrimination, it's not DISABILITY discrimination, unless the thing you're discriminating for or against is a disability.
I think the following things are disabilities:
- blindness
- deafness
- being in a wheelchair for over 12 months
- being of very low IQ
I don't think the following things are disabilities:
- being French
- being gay
- having blonde hair
And I'm dubious that being colourblind is a disability.
Happy to be wrong, though. -
The birthmark scenario is commonly used as an example, so I probably don't need to ask, but will if you like.
The DRC has this to say about it:People with severe disfigurements are covered by the DDA and do not need to prove any effect on their day-to-day activities.
Not all disfigurements will be considered 'severe'. Scars, birthmarks, limb or postural deformation or skin disease could be severe disfigurements. Whether or not they are 'severe' may depend partly on where they are on your body, for example a birthmark on your back may not be a severe disfigurement, whereas a similar mark on your face might be considered severe.
It's worth noting the use of language in that statement, which you will see in any legal text relating to the DDA (and any other discrimination legislation). They will always use words like may, might and could rather than will. That comes back to the fact that each case would have to be considered based on individual circumstance.- What if I didn't give you a job because you were blond(e)?
Being blonde wouldn't be considered to be a disfigurement whereas a birthmark could be. -
My point is that just because something may be discrimination, it's not DISABILITY discrimination, unless the thing you're discriminating for or against is a disability
Yep, no doubt.I think the following things are disabilities:
- blindness
- deafness
- being in a wheelchair for over 12 months
- being of very low IQ
They're certainly obvious ones.Boringness wouldn't be a disability because, although it probably lasts longer than 12 months, it doesn't affect your ability to carry out day to day tasks.
True, but do be sure that they're just boring and not depressed, because most forms of depression can be considered as a disability! -
OK, then they make special provision for severe birthmarks etc.
Didn't know that (I've only read the bits that are generally relevant to web design).
So no, you don't need to ask about that one.
The fact they say people with severe disfigurements "do not need to prove any effect on their day-to-day activities" implies that OTHER disabilities DO have to prove an effect on day-to-day activities.
Which may imply that a colourblind person would have to prove how their colourblindess affected their day to day activities? -
Which may imply that a colourblind person would have to prove how their colourblindess affected their day to day activities?
It's actually true that in most cases the person has to prove that they are disabled as far as the DDA is concerned, which yet again brings us back to individual circumstance. So yes, a colourblind person would have to prove that their colourblindness was actually a disability but only in relation to the current situation.
So if you had an ecommerce site that had some feature that could only be used if you could distinguish colours, they would have to prove that the way your site functions adversely affects their access to your services by virtue of their colourblindness. That's because shopping online can be considered a 'day to day activity'.
Remember though that we are talking about civil law here so the burden of proof isn't the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' measure that we're all familiar with through court room dramas, but the much less rigid 'balance of probabilities'. That can be interpreted along the lines of; can the person prove that on balance it is more likely that a reasonable person would believe that they had been discriminated against?'
Every step in the process is down to interpretation, which is how you get case law which then sets precedent for future cases.
This is a bit like the GPL. You can find arguments all over the place about what its terms actually mean, but until it's tested in court we'll never know for sure (although I really don't want to get into that debate!) -
That kind of suggests that they consider colour blindness as a disability (although I must stress that is my interpretation).
I'm inclined to agree. The Act itself is typically vague as to the definition of disability so can be openly interpreted. I've just had a rummage through my books and found a few references to the DDA (been years since I studied using them, and they're pre-DRC), but found this:The substantial condition
Minor impairments should be considered together in determining whether they had a substantial adverse effect on the person's ability to carry out day-to-day activities. A progressive condition which has begun to have an effect on the person's health, is deemed to have a substantial effect if it is likely to have such an effect in the future
I'm no expert on colourblindness, but is there a possibility that it could be sometimes caused as a secondary effect of another vision-related condition? The above quote is in relation to employer discrimination not access to goods/services, but it's a similar concept. Could it be interpreted that it favours the claimant if he has a certain vision-related condition that is likely to worsen possibly causing/exacerbating colourblindness in the future?
As Barry says, a qualified medical opinion would be sought if this were to enter legal proceedings. Perhaps the best answer would be from a qualified medical practitioner. Does anyone know an eye-doctor or optician with a law degree?
I really look forward to what your lawyer colleagues/mates have to say.
Civil law was always my favourite :) -
I'm no expert on colourblindness, but is there a possibility that it could be sometimes caused as a secondary effect of another vision-related condition?
My understanding is that colorblindness is generally genetic, and affects mostly men (about 10%). -
Ok, I've been to see one of our lawyers. His answer was that yes definitely a colour blind person could be considered disabled. They easily meet the time criteria, and they would just have to prove that they were receiving detrimental treatment because of their colour blindness.
His feeling was that something like shopping online could be considered a day to day activity and therefore if you did design something that relied solely on colour to distinguish things you were putting yourself at risk of prosecution.
But, we both struggled to think of a real example! You'd almost have to set out to deliberately cause a problem. -
Well, if you want an example that's easy.
The background's green and the text is red. -
Well, if you want an example that's easy.
The background's green and the text is red.
Yeah, but why would you do that!? :-) -
- CommentAuthorbill posters
- CommentTimeMay 14th 2007 edited
His feeling was that something like shopping online could be considered a day to day activity
Let me be categorical, shopping is considered one of those activities protected under the DDA*.
The DDA purposefully makes no distinction between shopping online or offline as it sees no distinction.
Shopping falls directly under the notion of 'the provision of goods'.
We know that high street shops fall under the jurisdiction of the DDA and online shops are no different in that regard.
(* I personally feel that it shouldn't be, but hey!, that's democracy.) -
Yeah, but why would you do that!? :-)
Well, I wouldn't. But perhaps the designer thought it looked nice. -
- CommentAuthorbill posters
- CommentTimeMay 14th 2007 edited
I wouldn't. But perhaps the designer thought it looked nice.
Call the style police and have them removed.
Or, at least, get the designer to stop mixing their hard drugs.
I'd say that posts have already been made detailing what can be done to work around potentially problematic 'default' designs.
Whether a site uses green on red is academic if said site also provides a high contrast alternative stylesheet (or possibly a link to view the page w/o the stylesheet, thereby reverting to the browser's/user's default colours).
No-one (i.e. no web developer who understands the DDA) is saying that we absolutely must not do things - or attempt to do things - in our design which could potentially result in a contravention of the DDA. All it requires is that we ensure that users who might experience a problem have the means to access the content, either through common alterations to their software settings or by means provided directly by the site.
As said, I'm no fan of the DDA v-a-v shopping, but whilst that's in effect, it behoves us, as professional, conscientious web designers and developers to build intelligently - and to be prepared, if called upon, to make tweaks and alterations to ensure that sites which we build don't lead either our clients or ourselves to be cited in a lawsuit.
First port of call for any person experiencing accessibility problems with a site on the grounds of their disability will typically be the site's admin/'webmaster'. It's likely to be an expectation (by those through whom which such claims are made - e.g. DRC, RNIB) that a disabled person experiencing such problems has first attempted to resolve any issue by contacting the site owner/admin to inform them of their problems with the site.
Precedence also suggests that those who are judged to have fallen foul of the DDA are given the option/chance to 'fix' the issue before any punative acton is taken. Only if a site owner/author has refused (as opposed to being unable) to accept the finding of a judgement made against them or to act on their recommendations, would they face legal reprimand. -
-
CommentAuthorThe Tall Designer
- CommentTimeMay 15th 2007 edited
Bloody hell - sorry I tried to read it all but I got stuck somewhere around the birthmark discussion and just dropped to here.
Right - I am colour blind - and although I don't really consider myself disabled on a day to day basis - I am (Lot's of 'proper' disabled people don't really consider themselves to be disabled, mainly because your generally born with the disability).
I tell you what I can't do on a day to day basis.- Be a policeman
- be an electrician
- be a pilot
- be a spaceman! (disapointed me as a kid)
- Draw an elephant the right colour (I used to draw them pink, not grey)
- wire a plug with 100% certainty
+ many, many more.
hypothetically, if your text was dark-ish green, on a white background, and your links were red and NOT underlined, I couldn't see them.
this is why you should ALWAYS indicate something visually AS WELL as in colour.
........and of course why links are coloured AND underlined :)
There's a bundle of other diseases that affect colour perception, even just short sightedness can do it - so just follow the fairly simple rules and you should be fine.
BTW I manage to be a designer by stealing other peoples colour schemes and the fact that all colours have a handy number :D -
-
- CommentAuthorColblindor
- CommentTimeMay 16th 2007 edited
I'm not a doctor and didn't study biology or something. But I'm writing all about color blindness on my weblog (colblindor.com) and learn each day more and more about it. Also I suffer from protanopia (red-blindness) and I have some difficulties to distinguish certain colors. This is a very interesting discussion going on here which I was pointed to by Nick. So I'll try to share my point of view on this topic.
I would like to start with the statement from nick, which I agree with:Colour blindness can be considered to be a disability within the terms of the DDA.
What makes me think, that color blindness can be seen as a disability?
There are different types of color blindness. The strongest form is Achromatopsia (also called rod monochromacy) which can be related to a complete color blindness. People suffering from achromatopsia have either no color receptors or are missing two of them (the red and the green one), which means they can only see in shades of gray. Looking at the DDA,- substantial means neither minor nor trivial
- long term means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months
- normal day-to-day activities include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping
- a normal day-to-day activity must affect one of the 'capacities' listed in the Act which include mobility, manual dexterity, speech, hearing, sight and memory
achromatopsia is definitely not minor (far to many things are color coded), long term and includes day-to-day activities. I would like to give you some examples for activities which might be a smaller or bigger problem for somebody suffering from a very strong form of color blindness from my point of view:- Somebody can sell you unripe or overripe fruits, because you can't distinguish the color shades which tell you about the ripeness of a fruit.
- A clothes cleaner could not tell you, that your clothes have now a nice red color tint after washing them and you won't spot it.
- Getting your way around on public transport with all those color coded subway and bus maps can give you a headache.
- Buying a tie which fits to a new shirt means, you always have to ask the shop stuff.
- Color coded share charts (example: dard red for bad values and black for good values) aren't really distinguishable.
This makes me think, that color blindness can be looked at as a disability under DDA.
Of course, everybody who suffers color blindness learns how to get around those things and learns to handle it. Most often it is not felt as a disability at all. But there are many little things which gives you some problems in some everyday tasks.
Also there are many different forms of color blindness. Usually you'll have some form of red-green color blindness, sometimes (much less common) blue-yellow color blindness. And even those types have many different shades between almost normal vision and on the otherside red-blind, green-blind or blue-blind. This types of color blindness have names, which lead you to a wrong understanding. For example red-green color blindness doesn't mean you have only problems to distinguish between red and green. There are also big problems on the whole axis frome yellow / bright green / orange / green / dark green / red / brown / very dark blue / black. And also some blue-greenish colors can't be distinguished form some gray and pink colors. This means that if you don't check your website with the tools available you're never sure if it looks ok to somebody suffering from color blindness.As there are many varieties of 'colour blindness', for a lawsuit to be successful, it would need to be proven that the form with which the user suffers has a directly detrimental effect on their ability to use the site against which the accusation of discrimination has been made (and that the site has not taken reasonable steps to provide access to users with said condition.)
This is definitely true. Because the severity can differ a lot it has to be proven in each case again. Usually it wouldn't be a problem and many colorblind people have no problem in their daily lifes. But there are some forms which can cause great problems, specially the above described form of complete color blindness.
Concerning web-design I think, because color blindness can be looked at as a disability, you need to take precautions not to "making websites that aren't illegal under disability discrimination legislation". And the best way to do this would be to support a version of your site only in grayscale. This ensures that every colorblind person can read it, independent of the type of color blindness he/she suffers from.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think I have a disability and I get around very well. -
Thanks Colblindor,
That's an excellent post.
I think you've convinced me that (or rather why) certain forms of colourblindness do constitute a disability!
:o) -
Daniel, thanks so much for stopping by!
-
Hi
Nick emailed a disability consultancy that I am a Director of. Their website is www.handsonaccess.com
I am a lawyer and have substantial experience with the DDA following my previous employment with a national disability charity.
In my opinion, a person with colour-blindness is likely to come within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act. One has to remember that there are several hurdles to jump before succeeding in a claim under the Act. Jumping one of the hurdles does not necessarily mean the entire claim will be successful. In relation to websites, the greatest and problematic hurdle to jump will be what adjustments are available, and is that adjustment in itself reasonable? To assess the reasonableness of an adjustment, several factors have to be taken into account i.e. the effect of any adjustment, costs, resources available to the employer/service provider etc
I almost laughed when a poster mentioned 'birthmark' and whether it is a disability. In my opinion, it is not likely to come within the Act. However, if an employee had a prominent birthmark and another employee was taunting (etc) then the employee could complain of harassment.
I will try and remember to come back to read any further comments if I have not drawn the debate to an abrupt halt!
Jonathan
Black White and Grey
Commercial and Employment Lawyers
advice@bwglaw.co.uk -
- CommentAuthorbill posters
- CommentTimeMay 18th 2007
[ot]
Love the company name, Jonathan.
[/ot] -
I almost laughed when a poster mentioned 'birthmark' and whether it is a disability. In my opinion, it is not likely to come within the Act.
Just like colour blindness, a birthmark is one of those things that stretches your imagination as to exactly how it would be a disability! But I can remember this being used as an example a number of times when I was training, plus the quote I gave came from the DRC website.
I think to me this just reiterates that there are many things that could be be covered under the DDA, but each case needs to be dealt with on its own merits. -
Glad you (Bill Posters) like the name. Many do. We were right to register it as a trade mark.
Having re-read my post I would make a technical point, and it is merely that, a technical point, that colour-blindness is a 'long-term condition' as opposed to a 'disability'. One may argue when does a 'long-term condition' become a disability in the moral sense? In the legal sense it will be if the condition lasts for 12-months or more. Arguably a birthmark could be deemed a 'long-term condition' but it is likely to fail the other hurdles i.e. 'substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities' - one has to identify any adverse effects which must be substantial and then apply this to any normal day-to-day activities. Surfing the internet will come within this meaning. Then the next hurdle is to identify any adjustments to remove that effect, is that adjustment reasonable? This is the make or break point
Jonathan
Black White and Grey
Commercial and Employment Lawyers
advice@bwglaw.co.uk -
- CommentAuthorbill posters
- CommentTimeMay 18th 2007
Fwiw, this came through the blogvine earlier today…
Color Oracle…takes the guesswork out of designing for color blindness by showing you in real time what people with common color vision impairments will see.…
-
Arguably a birthmark could be deemed a 'long-term condition' but it is likely to fail the other hurdles i.e. 'substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'
Then you appear to disagree with the guidance given by the DRC, which explicitly says that in the case of severe disfigurement they don't have to prove that.
"People with severe disfigurements are covered by the DDA and do not need to prove any effect on their day-to-day activities.
Not all disfigurements will be considered 'severe'. Scars, birthmarks, limb or postural deformation or skin disease could be severe disfigurements. Whether or not they are 'severe' may depend partly on where they are on your body, for example a birthmark on your back may not be a severe disfigurement, whereas a similar mark on your face might be considered severe."
Although of course, as I've said, the chances of a facial birthmark (however severe) in any way impacting on their ability to use a webiste has got to be zero! -
I agree. The severity is where I am coming from. Even lawyers may argue whether a birthmark is a severe disfigurement. The DRC are generally referring to those with more severe disfigurements as a deformity at birth. Whilst I agree it is not entirely necessary for someone with severe disfigurement to prove 'substantial adverse effect to their day-to-day activities' if they were to complain under the DDA it is likely to be less favourable treatment, victimisation/harassment and they would succeed on this.
What the DRC and what the Court's views are can be fundamentally different. DRC have been known to get the law wrong. They have even ended up in the Employment Tribunal for discriminating a disabled employee!. I have at one time, when working for a national disability organisation, sought the opinions from DRC and they are not as clued up as they claim to be, unless you communicate with their lawyers directly.
Guidance from DRC is not law, it is purely guidance based on their opinion. It could be argued that in order for an adjustment to be identified one has to know what the substantial adverse effect is in order to eliminate it by providing a reasonable adjustment.
It has been acknowledged that the DDA is the most complex piece of anti-discrimination legislation ever. -
It has been acknowledged that the DDA is the most complex piece of anti-discrimination legislation ever.
I think we've amply demonstrated that here :-) -
My knowledge of the legislation and its implementation is that ... they don't name any specific disabilities
Yes it does: HIV, Multiple Sclerosis and certain forms of cancer are defined as disabilities under the act from the point of diagnosis. These are in addition to the act's definition of disability.
Nothing to do with Web design, but its worth knowing! -
What you are referring to mickyBoy are guidelines published by the DRC. This is not law, per se. The Act does not specify any particular disabilities. Which disabilities will come within the meaning of the Act the Courts/Tribunals will refer to the DDA (and any regulations), any case-law and equally refer to any guidelines published by the DRC, as 'evidence'. A Court/Tribunal is not obliged to follow the guidelines. The guidelines are exactly that, guidelines, to assist the Courts/Tribunals in interpreting various provisions of the DDA.
1 to 38 of 38