What's next?

[PrincessFiona]

Holy Cow

Blind Cal student sues Target...Website cannot be used by the sightless

Edited on Thu Feb-09-06 12:49 AM by LiberalGuy000
Blind Cal student sues Target, Suit charges retailer's Web site cannot be used by the sightless

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 8, 2006

(02-08) 1215 PST OAKLAND -- A blind UC Berkeley student has filed a class-action lawsuit against Target Corp., saying the retailer is committing civil-rights violations because its Web site is inaccessible to those who cannot see.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, said the upscale discounter's on-line business, target.com, denies blind Californians equal access to goods and services available to those who can see.

"Target thus excludes the blind from full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of daily life," said the suit, which seeks to be certified as a class action and alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and various state statutes.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 06/02/08...

[rainbabies]

[BonBon]

That's a joke, right?

If not, then that idiot deserves to be hit between the eyes with a slingshot. So...if I'm deaf does that mean I can sue the radio stations?


AFAIK, the internet as a whole is inaccessable by the blind, no?

I'm not sure about websites specifically but there is lots of software and such available to help the blind use computers. I would assume that would (or could) apply to accessing the internet as well. We've looked into this for my MIL but she can't use it for other reasons. A friend of a friend who is blind from CF uses the computer a lot. She has written a book and I don't think she dictated it.

I don't think suing is really the way to go, but it seems silly that Target wouldn't make some changes to their site to make it accessible.

I have a lawsuit pending with GM.....the car I bought is nothing like the Corvette that I dreamed about owning from them!

[spotty_dog]

Give me a friggen break! Are there really visually impaired friendly websites?

Absolutely. A properly constructed website written to Web standards can be translated directly by means of special software for the visually impaired. At the very least, the content of such sites is accessible to the visually impaired, even if the "bells and whistles" aren't.

The problem comes when sites are written for visual appeal only, and the "dirty undercarriage" is ignored. (Unfortunately browsers have been written with a LOT of leeway such that they will display even extremely poorly written sites, which continue to perpetuate and to break every standard that was written in the MID NINETIES.) These might be inaccessible Flash designs (Macromedia's latest version of Flash permits a completely accessible design if desired) or garbled code that is too convoluted and marked up with extraneous tags to be deciphered by the Web reading software.

It's a serious problem, and to be honest, I'm ecstatic to see it being taken seriously!

http://webstandards.org/

[spotty_dog]

Is Amazon.com a "blind friendly" sight? Not sure of the politically correct term? Why Target? Is it because of their deep pockets and high visability? Although I'm not suprused by too much that comes out of Berkley.

High visibility? Was that a Freudian slip?

First, Amazon.com has an accessible version at http://www.amazon.com/access

Second, and this is just a guess, the Target pharmacy might have more important goods than the Amazon bookstore. Say, something that affects the health of the person who's not able to hit the Submit button to sign in to the pharmacy?

[rainbabies]

[PrincessFiona]

This seems to be just a deep pockets lawsuit though. Why are they going after 'Target' and not a wide variety of retailers? Why sue like this...there are other ways to bring the issue to the forefront.

Does it have to be the responsibility of retailers to make life more 'fair'? Being blind has got to be horrible...really...and yes, there is software that is slowly becoming more available/getting better that will make web access easier for the blind.

Whose responsibility is this though? Should ever retailer be required to have special websites that are accessible to the blind, or...should retailers have a choice...thus...allowing the market to work a little? (Does that sound republican? ) I say, if amazon has stepped up to the plate and provided access, that's awesome and blind people should all shop there when they can. If Target doesn't...then they could even avoid shopping at Target in person....

Just a few thoughts...

[spotty_dog]

Okay, now that I know there is software out there for this matter....maybe bigger corporations could help out a bit by providing it for people with disabilities. I do think though, that this person with the lawsuit is a little over the top. How about presenting the case to Target on friendly terms and going about it that way?

That's not the issue. See, web sites exist because your browser is interpreting the programming code that was used to write them. That code is built on rules, and the rules were written in the mid-nineties by the World Wide Web Consortium. The screen readers and other accessibility software, which will be *already installed* in any system used by a disabled person, rely on those rules to operate. When the rules are properly implemented, the software functions beautifully, and blind (and otherwise disabled) people participate on the Web as easily as you or I do.

The problem happens when corners are cut in website programming, inexperienced people are hired, and browsers ignore the rules so that coders don't have to pay attention to them either. Denying accessibility to about a quarter of the Web-using population is a big deal, and the fact that it comes about through sloppiness is pitiful. Corporations need to know that their web presence needs to be as accessible as their brick and mortar presence, and it's my understanding that the Americans with Disabilities Act covers both.

The National Federation of the Blind did try to be friendly. They approached Target last May, 10 months ago, to point out the problems with their site (glaring issues that would throw immediate errors for any standards OR accessibility checker). Target ignored them and didn't change the site. When the suit was brought, they changed their tune and the site was made more accessible OVERNIGHT. Too little too late, but sometimes the threat of litigation will do more for a big corporation than a simple friendly request will.

Interestingly enough, the VERY SAME CHANGES also tend to make websites operate on less bandwidth and to have less download time, making them cheaper to serve and more accessible to users of dialup as well...

[spotty_dog]

Should ever retailer be required to have special websites that are accessible to the blind, or...should retailers have a choice...thus...allowing the market to work a little?

In this day and age, I believe that is tantamount to saying that it's acceptable for a business to forbid access to assistance dogs if they wish to limit their customer base, or that it's OK for stores not to have wheelchair-accessible entrances if they don't mind losing the income from handicapped shoppers.

[PrincessFiona]

Well, it certainly is food for thought. You've brought up some points that I would have never considered, Alison.