The Scope of the Law and the Responsibility of Designers
The extent of the law is widening to demand considerations of the blind in visual communication and graphic designers can no longer remain ignorant on the topic. Each year thousands of lawsuits are won demanding facilities, signage, and websites that communicate to the blind. Clients need educated designers to take accessibility issues into consideration in their work, preventing the client from significant additional costs down the road because of a deficiency in knowledge on the subject.
In 2002 the United States Bureau of the Census cited that 7.7 million Americans over the age of 15 have difficulty seeing and 1.8 million Americans could not see at all.[1] This number is up from 1.3 million in 1995.[2] While the number of blind individuals is increasing, their inclusion in mass communication remains inadequate for an independent lifestyle and their disregard is evidenced by omission. In U.S. society, many aspects of day-to-day life are directed by and rely on print, impeding the independence of the blind and forcing them to rely on others to function. Some aspects of design are already expanding to accommodate the blind, offering Braille alternatives in books and on architectural signage and providing emergency notifications with sound, but these instances are not widespread, nor do they scratch the surface of the multitude of applications that direct us through visual aids. Product packaging, signage, maps, directions, and news aggregation – just to name a few – remain entirely visual, ignoring the blind altogether.
It is clear that the blind have been overlooked in many facets of communication, but their omission is now affecting businesses in very direct and negative ways. One very of the pressing repercussions of their disregard is the legal implication of such treatment. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil rights law, was passed in 1990 prohibiting discrimination in the United States against people with disabilities. [3] Originally this law appeared to apply only to physical brick and mortar establishments, but this application is changing. Numerous legal victories are being won against small and large businesses alike, revealing higher demands and a longer reach of the law. One California lawyer, Thomas Frankovich, has filed between 1,500 and 1,800 ADA lawsuits since 1994, and currently has 50 active suits.[4]
Though most of these suits are against physical buildings, their outcomes are having a direct impact on graphic design. In immediate correlation, signage that is not accessible to the blind is prosecutable. The law requires that permanent room signs, directional signs, overhead signs, and projecting signs all meet certain standards of typography, finish and contrast. For viewing purposes there is a standard on character proportion, demanding a width-to-height ratio between 3:5 and 1:1 and a stroke-width-to-height ratio between 1:5 and 1:10. The finish must be non-gloss so that reflecting light does not affect readability for those with low vision. Similarly, characters and symbols must have high contrast from their background. In addition to these design considerations, permanent room signs (rooms that have walls and doors, not including individual cubicles) must also include Braille labels for the blind with a minimum raised height of 5.8 inch. [5] Designers creating this type of architectural signage must be aware of the requirements and meet the ADA standards for the disabled.
In 2005 a law was enacted by the European Commission requiring Braille to be present on pharmaceutical packages denoting the name of the drug and the strength[6]. Similar legislature is currently being considered in the United States. Though no such law exists presently in the United States, it is causing a ripple effect. Pharmaceutical companies that supply both U.S. and European countries are now incorporating these standards into all of their packagings. Designers in the United States working for companies that distribute overseas must become aware of these laws and regulations and be able to incorporate the standards into their work.
Further concerning designers, the law has extended past physical objects to the online environment. Section 508 of the Workforce Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 1998, requires that the websites of Federal agencies be accessible to persons with disabilities, including the blind.[7] Section 508 currently has no direct relevance to public, non-government websites, but it does have an indirect effect on public information technology. [8] Even though there is not a direct application of the law, businesses and organizations are being held legally accountable for these guidelines. Non-government websites are losing battles requiring them to invest heavy funding into compensating for their omission of the blind and inevitably these same ramifications will come to bear in print as well.
Perhaps the largest public online ADA lawsuit of 2009 was between the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the Target Corporation. The NFB filed suit claiming that Target’s website was not accessible to the blind. Target initially requested the case be dropped on grounds that the laws (Section 508 and the Americans with Disabilities Act) did not apply to a corporate website. The judge, however, ruled in favor of the NFB, citing the intimate correlation between physical Target stores and their online store. The ruling brought great financial consequences to Target: $6,000,000 in damages to the claimants, $210,000 to the NFB for certification and monitoring of compliance over three years, mandated accessibility training for each of their web developers at a cost of $15,000 a person, and the potential to pay legal fees (this has yet to be determined). [9]
Target’s case substantiates both the legal and financial ramifications of graphic design that does not extend communication to the blind. One objection that may arise from graphic designers is that by definition graphic design is primarily a visual application, so how does it relate to non-visual individuals? Modern art museums are facing a similar obstacle, as they are primarily a space for people to see things. To overcome the deficiency of sight museums are thinking creatively. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City has instituted programs for visitors with disabilities. Their efforts for the blind include Braille labels, large-print labels, free audio guides, and collections of art that can be touched and experienced tactilely.[10] The experience may not be tantamount to that of someone with sight, but this is a step towards creating equality.
Graphic designers must think creatively in this way as well. In practical application, this means being able to communicate on two levels, translating purely visual communication to an additional form of exchange. This may seem like a daunting task, but in many ways, graphic designers are already accomplishing this type of dual communication through the use of interactive elements: perfume ads and scratch-and-sniff patches address the sense of smell; sound and video chips address the sense of hearing; books with interactive elements to pull and feel address the sense of touch. These same instruments can be used as agents of communication to the blind, enhancing design and extending the scope of the communicative devices while still maintaining a high level of visual communication.
Web design has adapted in recent years to provide content that translates from purely visual communication to an audible one, communicating a single instance on compound levels. To the casual user, this online adaption may not be apparent, but sites that communicate effectively are built in an entirely different manner. The process upon which web designers build sites has changed, taking the blind into consideration at the onset. Considerations for text that can be read by screen readers and the usage of images that cannot be read have to be made, as does the organization of the structure and content. Even with these limitations and additional considerations, great websites are being created. This ability to thrive amidst challenges and successfully communicate dualistically begs the question, why can the print medium not do the same?
This means that designers must think differently and creatively to overcome a lack of sight but, in the end, shouldn’t great graphic design be able to triumph over difficulty? If designers want their works to inform the largest audience they can no longer ignore the 1.8 million Americans without sight. Not only does this type of omission narrow the base of individuals that can comprehend the information, it also has the potential to invite legal recourse. The Target lawsuit has set a precedent for other businesses and, indirectly, their designers. Target did not knowingly create a site that defied the law. They were aware of the current laws as they related to government sites as well as the recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium’s accessibility guidelines for all websites, but in the end, decided not to include accessibility in the design. Their decision provided to be decidedly detrimental to the corporation.
Though Target’s suit was in conjunction with a website, it effectively stretched the extent of the law, paving the way for further expansion that could include print. If the website was condemned because of its connection to the physical stores, then what about the printed advertisements or catalogs that are being sent to supplement store sales? These pieces share a similar connection as an extension of the physical store. What is next? Signage is already subject to the law, perhaps next will be newspapers or magazines.
The increase of what is covered by law may paint a radical picture of universally mandated accessibility. Surely not all graphic design can speak directly to the blind, but it is an issue that designers must begin to consider in their work. Not only do the blind deserve an independent lifestyle, but clients will not continue to bear the brunt of legal recourse themselves. A company hires designers expecting that they will be informed professionals, able to direct them on the proper and legal ways to present information. It may not be reasonable to suggest that every printed piece could or should serve as a tactile communication to the blind, but it is reasonable to ask that designers inform themselves of the options available for this avenue and consider the possibility of dual communications. Graphic designers can no longer afford to remain ignorant. Both the clients and the blind, deserve more.
[1] Resources for People with Disabilities and Chronic Conditions. Lexington, Massachusetts: Resources for Rehabilitation, Inc, 2002.
[2] NFB – Blindness Statistics. National Federation of the Blind. . April 29, 2010.
[3] Accessibility, Law and Target.com. Jim Thatcher. . April 27, 2010.
[4] ADA Accessibility lawsuits causing headaches for small business owners. San Francisco Chronicle. . April 27, 2010.
[5] ADA Accessibility Guidelines. United States Access Board. . May 4, 2010.
[6] Braille on pharmaceutical packaging – breaking the law? Healthcare Packaging Pulse. . April 30, 2010.
[7] Accessibility, Law and Target.com. Jim Thatcher. . April 27, 2010.
[8] Accessibility, Law and Target.com. Jim Thatcher. . April 27, 2010.
[9] WebAIM: Visual Disabilities. Web Accessibility in Mind. . April 26, 2010.
[10] Programs for Visitors with Disabilities. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. http://www.metmuseum.org/events/visitorsdisabilities/blind. April 29, 2010.