This article examines policy issues related to disability law and the accessibility of the provision of federal electronic government (e-government) information and services. The article first discusses disability discrimination in relation to the on-line environment and examines the history of governmental attitudes toward disability that affect the current state of accessibility of the e-government. Detailing federal disability laws and policies that relate to e-government information and services, the article focuses on the potential impact of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. By chronicling the problems with the implementation of Section 508, the article describes how a fully accessible e-government remains an elusive goal. Finally, the article offers a detailed set of policy suggestions that could be implemented by the federal government to work toward an egalitarian e-government that is fully inclusive of individuals with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Access Board. (2002). FY 2001 annual report. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.access-board.gov/publications/01AnnualRept.txt
2.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
3.
Bednarz, A. (2002). Getting plugged into the e-government. Network World. Retrieved from http://www.nwfusion.com/supp/government2002/authentication.html
4.
Bick, J. (2000). Americans with Disabilities Act and the Internet. AlbanyLaw Journal of Science and Technology10, 205—227.
5.
Booz Allen Hamilton. (2002). International e-economy benchmarking: The world's most effective policies for the e-economy. London: Author.
6.
Braddock, D.L., & Parish, S.L. (2001). An institutional history of disability. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 11—68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
8.
Browning, G. (2002). Electronic democracy: Using the internet to transform American politics (2nd ed.). Medford, NJ: CyberAge Books/Information Today.
9.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
10.
Cardoso, F.H. (2001). Democracy as a starting point. Journal of Democracy, 12(1), 5—14.
11.
Center for Information Technology Accommodation. (2002). Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/offerings_content.jsp?contentOID=22804&contentType=1004&PMKC=1&S=1
12.
Covey, H.C. (1998). Social perceptions of people with disabilities in history. Springfield, IL: Thomas .
13.
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
14.
Dahl, R.A. (2001). How democratic is the American Constitution?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Department of Commerce. (2000). Falling through the Net: Toward digital inclusion. Retrieved from http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf
16.
Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html
17.
Department of Justice. (2001). Information technology and people with disabilities: The current state of federal accessibility. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report/content.htm
18.
E-Government Act of 2002, H.R. 2458 (2002).
19.
European Union. (2001). E-inclusion: The information society's potential for social inclusion in Europe. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/info_soc/esdis/eincl_en.pdf
20.
Fleischer, D.Z., & Zames, F. (2001). The disability rights movement: From charity to confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
21.
Garland, R. (1995). The eye of the beholder: Deformity and disability in the Graeco-Roman world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
Gibson, K. (2001). Better accessibility draws multiple markets. Marketing News, 35(2), 8.
23.
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
24.
Hacker, K. L., & van Dijk, J. L. (Eds.). ( 2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.
25.
Hague, B. N., & Loader, B. D. (Eds.). (1999). Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age. New York: Routledge.
26.
Hernon, P., Reylea, H.C., Dugan, R.E., & Cheverie, J.F. (2002). United States government information: Policies and sources. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
27.
Hignite, K.B. (2000). The accessible association. Association Management, 52(13), 36—43.
28.
Hobson, C.F. (1996). The great chief justice: John Marshall and the rule of law. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
29.
Howard, M. (2001). E-government across the globe: How will “e” change government?Government Finance Review, 17(4), 6—9.
30.
Jaeger, P.T. (2002). Constitutional principles and e-government: An opinion about possible effects of federalism and the separation of powers on e-government policies. Government Information Quarterly , 19, 357—368.
31.
Jaeger, P.T., & Bowman, C.A. (2002). Disability matters: Legal and pedagogical issues of disability in education. Westport, CT: Praeger.
32.
Kennard, W.E., & Lyle, E.E. (2001). With freedom comes responsibility: Ensuring that the next generation of technologies is accessible, usable, and affordable . CommLaw Conspectus, 10, 5—22.
33.
Konkright, K.E. (2001). An analysis of the applicability of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act to private Internet access providers. IdahoLaw Review, 37, 713—746.
34.
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
35.
Lais, S. (2000). Accessibility law evokes cheers, fears. Computerworld, 34(17), 97.
36.
Leslie Harris & Associates. (2002). Bringing a nation online: The importance of federal leadership. Retrieved February20, 2004, from http://civilrights.org/publications/bringinganationonline
37.
Maroney, P. (2000). The wrong tool for the right job: Are commercial Websites places of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990?Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment Law & Practice, 2, 191—204.
38.
Matthews, W. (2001a, November 5). A legal tangle: Litigation worries over accessibility law spark agency/contractor disputes. Federal Computer Week. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.fcw.com
39.
Matthews, W. (2001b, October 22). Web usability obstacles abound. Federal Computer Week. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.fcw.com
40.
Matthews, W. (2002, June 24). One year and counting: Section 508—Feds tout progress but need more time on accessibility law. Federal Computer Week. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.fcw.com
41.
McLawhorn, L. (2001). Leveling the accessibility playing field: Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 3, 63—100.
42.
Milliman, R.E. (2002). Website accessibility and the private sector: Disability stakeholders cannot tolerate 2% access!Information Technology and Disabilities, 8(2). Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.rit.edu/~easi.itd.htm
43.
Muir, A., & Oppenheim, C. (2002). National information policy developments worldwide I: Electronic government. Journal of Information Science, 28, 173—186.
44.
National Council on Disability. (2001). The accessible future. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.ncd.gov
45.
Nugent, J.D. (2001). If e-democracy is the answer, what's the question?National Civic Review, 90, 221—233.
46.
Patterson, D. (2002). Along the disability divide. Government Technology's Electronic Government, 3(1), 8—13.
47.
Petruzzelli, J.D. (2001). Adjust your font size: Websites are public accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rutgers Law Review , 53, 1063—1093.
48.
Porteus, L. (2002, April 3). GSA showcases disability-friendly technologies . Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0402/040302td2.htm
49.
Prins, J. E. J. (Ed.). (2001). Designing e-government: On the crossroads of technological innovation and institutional change. Boston: Kluwer Law International.
50.
Ranen, J.S. (2002). Was blind but now I see: The argument for ADA applicability to the Internet. Boston CollegeThird WorldLaw Journal, 22,389—418.
51.
Rebell, M. (1986). Structural discrimination and the rights of the disabled. Georgetown Law Journal, 74, 1435—1489.
52.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
53.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 2001, Section 508, U.S.C. § 794d.
54.
Robb, K. (2001). Confusion reigns over accessibility compliance . North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 3, 63—100.
55.
Robertson, C.B. (2001). Providing access to the future: How the Americans with Disabilities Act can remove barriers in cyberspace. Denver UniversityLaw Review, 79, 199—227.
56.
Robinson, B. (2002, October 14). Making do: Agencies' efforts to design `usable' Web sites slowed by lack of resources, training. Federal Computer Week. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.fcw.com
57.
Salkever, A., & Kharif, O. (2002, October 29). The new push for e-government. Business Week. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.business-week.com
58.
Schloss, A.M. (2001). Web-sight for visually-disabled people: Does Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to Internet Websites?Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 35, 35—59.
59.
Scotch, R.K. (2001). From goodwill to civil rights: Transforming federal disability policy (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
60.
Shapiro, J.P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York: Times Books.
61.
Smith, S., Wilkinson, M.W., & Wagoner, L.C. (1914). A summary of the laws of the several states governing marriage and divorce of the feebleminded, epileptic and the insane; asexualization; and institutional commitment and discharge of the feebleminded and the epileptic . Seattle: University of Washington .
62.
Stiker, H.J. (1999). A history of disability (W. Sayers, Trans.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
63.
Stowers, G.N.L. (2002). The state of federal Websites: The pursuit of excellence. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.endowment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/StowersReport0802.pdf
64.
Tang, B.A. (2001a, July 5). Accessibility evolves into usability . Federal Computer Week. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.fcw.com
65.
Tang, B.A. (2001b, June 7). Section 508 tips from the trenches. Federal Computer Week. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.fcw.com
66.
Taylor, P. (2001). The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Internet . Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law , 7, 26—51.
67.
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 225 et seq.
68.
Thibodeau, P. (2001). Fed access law could affect IT. Computerworld, 35(25), 1, 61.
69.
Toregas, C. (2001). The politics of e-gov: The upcoming struggle for redefining civic engagement. National Civic Review, 90, 235—240.
70.
Trible v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977).
71.
Wells, S.J. (2001). Is the ADA working?HR Magazine , 46(4), 38—46.
72.
West, D.M. (2001). WMRC global E-government survey. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt01.html
73.
West, D.M. (2002a). State and federal e-government in the United States. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt02us.html
74.
West, D.M. (2002b). Urban e-government, 2002. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt02city.html
75.
West, T.G. (1997). Vindicating the Founders: Race, sex, class, and justice in the origins of America. Latham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
76.
White House. (2002). Presidential memo on the importance of e-government: Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/07/20020710-6.html
77.
Williams, T. (2001). Making government services accessible. American City & County, 116(2), 12.
78.
Winzer, M.A. (1993). The history of special education: From isolation to integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
79.
World Markets Research Centre. (2001). Global e-government survey. Providence, RI: Author.
