Cyndi Masters

Opinion contributor

Many of the headlines began the same way: “Blind man sues Playboy …”

That’s page view gold for news websites.

Stories breathlessly detailed Donald Nixon’s lawsuit claiming the Playboy website lacks compatibility with screen reading software, including “alt text" used for photo descriptions.

That was in November 2018.

Would the reaction have been the same if the lawsuit targeted websites with crucial public policy information? Take the websites for all of the 2020 presidential candidates, for example.

Voters with disabilities who try to begin making informed decisions about presidential candidates may be stymied when visiting any websites for candidates of both parties.

Democracy for the disabled

Before the recent Democratic candidate debates, the staff of the Miami Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired audited all candidate websites, finding that none of them fully comply with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2016, about 12.9% of the population has some form of disability. Add to that aging baby boomers who may have reduced vision, hearing and mobility. Their digital door to the world is often closed.

Awareness:I have a disability everyone can see. My bipolar friend who died by suicide did not.

Earlier this year a federal appeals court ruled that the ADA’s Title III applies to pizza giant Domino’s website and app as a place of public accommodation. The company is now asking the Supreme Court to review the case.

Organizations claim to support diversity with lofty mission statements. They profess to want diverse students, employees, suppliers, customers, constituents and voters. Yet their websites fail to fulfill those goals.

Similarly, state and municipal governments face lawsuits for inaccessible meeting agendas, records and other documents. The misguided solution, in some cases, has been to remove all documents to avoid the risk.

A recent analysis of the home pages of the top 1 million websites using international guidelines revealed accessibility errors on over 97% of those pages.

Health care in America:I had a good job and insurance — but high health care costs still drove me to bankruptcy

In 2018 there were over 2,200 lawsuits filed against businesses and organizations for violating Title III of the ADA.

The web is supposed to be accessible

I learned first-hand how the internet is a window to the world while I was recovering from a near-fatal accident almost 20 years ago when the internet was in its infancy. The web allowed me to explore and participate in a way that would have been impossible prior to the internet. That’s one of the reasons I started my business — I knew the web could make the world a fairer, more responsible place.

In comparison to brick and mortar properties, websites require less effort and expense to be made accessible.

For years, automatic doors, elevators, and braille on keypads, to name a few things, have provided everyone access to brick-and-mortar businesses. Prior to the passage of the ADA, there was no internet as we know it today. That doesn’t negate the need to offer equal access for all website users.

Where are the regulations?

Health care focus of 2020:Democrats can beat Trump on health care if they focus on high costs and economic security

In 2018, Rep. Ted Budd urged the Department of Justice to act on web accessibility. In response, the department affirmed the position from 20 years ago that stated Title III applies to public accommodations, adding that it has consistently held that “the absence of a specific regulation does not serve as a basis for noncompliance with a statute’s requirements.”

Why the surprise over the filing of lawsuits over this issue? Some argue that law firms are seeking an easy revenue stream. Nonetheless, the issue of web accessibility must be addressed.

The DOJ offered a sliver of clarity when it said accessibility alternatives could be implemented, such as a 24/7 call center to help users with disabilities.

However, that clarification shows a lack of vision.

In the end, the DOJ kicked the ball to Congress, calling on them to use their legislative power to clarify how the ADA applies to websites.

Legislation that would have provided some limited liability protection for organizations failed. That legislation offered no guidance on compliance.

Something has to give.

People with disabilities deserve equal access. Businesses deserve a clearer path.

The costs of retooling websites scares some companies. The ongoing costs of maintaining a 24/7 call center could be even more costly.

Looking at website accessibility, companies focus on three reasons for choosing to remodel their digital front door:

►Avoiding risk: Let’s do it, so we don’t get sued

►Commercial opportunity: Let’s sell more stuff

►It’s the right thing: Let’s welcome everyone. This reason demonstrates what great corporate citizenship is all about welcoming everyone. Also, it achieves the first two reasons.

Companies that offer accessible websites for the third reason will win in the court of public opinion.

The internet, after all, should equalize information and opportunity for everyone.

Cyndi Masters is CEO of DBS Interactive, a disability-owned business enterprise offering digital development, strategy and marketing services. this column originally appeared in the Louisville Courier Journal.