RIGHTS: The current state and US federal laws on accessibility do not touch Website owners RIGHTS at all – they merely give ‘classes’ of people the right to sue businesses deemed ‘public accomodations’ (read commercial enterprises, not blogs or such) that specifically and overtly deny a ‘class’ of people access to their business.

This is where Target went wrong – when the disabled community came to them and asked to ‘enter’ there business, they publicly stated that they did not WANT to give the disabled access to their store. If target would have said that they are working on it and it will take a year or two, the whole lawsuit would have never happened. But Target was right, they did have the RIGHT to refuse entry – they just had to pay for that right in the form of lawsuit settlements – the government does not have the ability to force a specific solution on a Website.

In most states, the laws used to sue Websites for not being accessible are decades old civil rights laws, not laws specific to the disabled or the Internet – I believe this was the case in the Target lawsuit.

So as a online business owner you have the right to refuse entry to anyone you deem appropriate – if, however, you publicly state that you are excluding a whole class of people based on race, disability, gender, etc., you ought not be surprised when you get sued.

LoL at whoever created their website… ^^ Should listen to your teachers more ><;

Whatever happened to ‘Right of Admission Reserved’ anyway?

This is absolute bull**** to put a finer point on it.

Target should of listened when it came to the alt tags, there’s got to be more to the case than just that, but to sue them is a step too far. Whatever next deaf people campaigning to use radio stations?

I’m a big advocate of accessibility, I can’t see a case like this happening in the UK.

A case in GB would be very welcome and has a much higher chance of success under the same circumstances since the relevant Codes of Practice specifically include purchases from a website.

These are not even close to the same thing. The store owner is not putting out a sign saying “No Coloreds”, nor “No Wheelchairs”. It is _physical reality_ that is hindering the handicapped person. There is a difference between barring a person you don’t like and being forced to jump through extra hoops to provide extra services for people with disabilities.

Not to the person being discriminated against there isn’t.

There was a wheelchair-bound guy in Chicago going around suing stores that had steps. Exactly the kind of small stores you describe — small local businesses in storefronts in older buildings. Two or three steps up to the door. This dude was driving around looking for businesses like that and then would sue them. He wasn’t even living in the area — these weren’t businesses he would have been patronizing, but he saw easy cash and he got it.

In Britain that gets you nowhere. the key here is a reasonable adjustment, ie what can you reasonably do. What’s reasonable for a large corporation isn’t necessarily reasonable to expect from a small local store. It’s all about proportionality and the law recognises that.

Though this is not entirely user-friendly, it gets the job done.

On the other hand, taking the time to make a dynamic site accessable is just plain smart. ADA is in place for a reason, Equality. The secret to a accessible website is just a google search away, and if you do everything correctly, it should only consume 1-5% (on average) of your expendables.

The arrogance of Target is incredible. And some of the things I see here are sad. The government in this case is correct in what it is doing: Upholding anti-discrimination laws. This applies to websites as well. I’m also glad that they are putting it to comcast but that is another post for another time.

My point is: as web designers/developers/prima f’n donnas in some cases, we have the responsibility to our clients and their customers to ensure that EVERYONE can use the websites we build. Any other way is not only poor business practice, but is also very lazy as there is no excuse for poor planning in this area. And any developer who won’t take the time to DO IT RIGHT is not one I wish to deal with!

If you don’t think that’s wrong then try replacing the adjective “disabled” with “black” or “female”.

These are not even close to the same thing. The store owner is not putting out a sign saying “No Coloreds”, nor “No Wheelchairs”. It is _physical reality_ that is hindering the handicapped person. There is a difference between barring a person you don’t like and being forced to jump through extra hoops to provide extra services for people with disabilities.

Let’s compare the physical location versus website again. If you go to one of these small towns that have small shops with stair entryways. Because they are small, they aren’t required to have entrance ramps for those in wheelchairs.

If the law allows the lawsuit, there will be lawsuits. It only takes a jackass judge to decide that everything is “reasonable”.

There was a wheelchair-bound guy in Chicago going around suing stores that had steps. Exactly the kind of small stores you describe — small local businesses in storefronts in older buildings. Two or three steps up to the door. This dude was driving around looking for businesses like that and then would sue them. He wasn’t even living in the area — these weren’t businesses he would have been patronizing, but he saw easy cash and he got it.

Beyond that, 12sharks nailed it. 100% agreement. With all the idiotic patents I see passed, I don’t want the government to start tossing out legal requirements for how I must code a web site. If I do it wrong, I lose customers. My competitor does it right and gains customers. End of story. The .gov should stay the heck out of it.

Imagine the government declaring that it’s illegal for you to _not_ learn Spanish, because a Spanish speaker might want to talk to you and not know that language would be discrimination? Some businesses advertise “Se Habla Espanol” (in Chicago they advertise Polish too). Other don’t. The government doesn’t require you to Habla Espanol to go into business — and rightly so.

As far as I’m concerned, my website is speech. As in First Amendment.

A blog might contain podcasts which could be inaccessible to deaf people .
Should youtube be made to automatically create text versions of any video that is uploaded or uploaders be forced to submit videos with subtitles ? Youtube is a veritable resource of information in todays world.

What i am getting at here is : how much strictly do you think this penalty for making content on the web inaccessible be applied to ? What exactly is injustice and what is non-adherence to regulations ?

Target should of listened when it came to the alt tags, there’s got to be more to the case than just that, but to sue them is a step too far. Whatever next deaf people campaigning to use radio stations?

I’m a big advocate of accessibility, I can’t see a case like this happening in the UK.

the government is required to provide this to all users who try to access their websites. So why shouldnt individual businesses?

You’re kind of making my point, here. I’m in full agreement that standards-compliant, accessible markup is the way to go, but I completely disagree on its relevance to this topic. This, to me, is less about “should” and more about government interference regarding the internet. Consider this possibility:

Say it came to the judge’s decision. Say also, instead of a decrepit old man who knew nothing about the internet beyond the two times he’s been on AOL it was *you*, an informed, savvy SitePoint community member. It was up to you to decide how Target.com met the standards the blind community was seeking – where would you begin? Given your involved and intelligent background, you’d probably suggest requiring the site to use ALT tags. That’s fine, but that (as any professional designer will tell you) is more of a ‘drop in the ocean’ considering accessibility than not doing anything at all. Is that where you’d set the bar? If not, where? Tabindexes? Outlawing Flash? Outlawing *images*?

The part of this matter that frightens me is that any judge (presumably much less capable than yourself) could decree what is effectively legal and illegal as far as the coding of Web pages are concerned. I greatly enjoy the freedoms and opportunities presented to me online as do all others here, but that freedom is built upon the tradition of the internet as a self-regulating body as opposed to a monopolistic (or even capitalistic) arm of profiteering.

Returning to my analogy (however unrealistic) of one of us – any of us – deciding what’s “accessible” online, upon what would those benchmarks be set? Upon whose approval would the interface be deemed satisfactory? What would, effectively, be a “negligently criminal” site? If Target.com were tagged as such, how many others could thusly be labeled?

In closing, I believe the Web to be the ideal that many of its founders espouse – a read/write medium that encourages cross-communication. This is a medium that, in one aspect, engenders self-publishing, from the GeoCities pages of yore to the blogs of tomorrow, and to think that our government would have a say – slight though it may be – as to what is “legal” and not would be a great disservice to an otherwise burgeoning community.

Does that mean I foresee a Web constructed of HTML-less Flash pages and endless Java sucks? Of course not. However, I strongly believe that this medium, unprecedented in human history in all its democratizing glory, belongs in the hands of its constituents rather than a few out-of-touch elected officials. And I believe that there is some degree of sanctity in that. Certainly, the tide is turning as the Web becomes more of a ‘utility’ than a novelty in most peoples’ lives, but just as quickly as someone can turn a buck through a procedure of legislation can someone effect change through the betterment of the collective, and, in the internet’s nascent state as it is, is it really best to make such rash decisions? I believe those can only hurt at this point – let’s look towards the future before relying on legal pursuits to achieve today’s means.

And, I do agree with you that the government has only mildly interfered, and it would be nice if they would remain so. I think one of the reasons this was won was because in this specific instance, it spills over into the “real world” because you can order products online that their brick-and-mortar stores sell but at special prices and discounts.

It was my understanding that one of the major points of this case was that Target had deals and such which were available only online and couldn’t be redeemed at the store. Since he was unable to use the website, and unable to redeem the special deal(s) at the store, and couldn’t receive any customer service to help him order the products, it became an issue of preventing him from obtaining something that any able-bodied person would have been able to acquire, thus discriminating against him for being disabled.

While I agree that it’s nice that the government does keep things unregulated for the most part, I can also see the good where larger business websites must meet certain criteria, just as larger business retail outlets must meet certain criteria… But, then you start getting into some gray area which is where I start getting worried.

1. Clean, semantic and accessibility-focused coding is always best (and I won’t sign off on anything that isn’t).
2. The internet is a place that should be available to people of all abilities; designers should take care to allow that.
C. This is all beside the point.

What I find concerning (and, as I interpret it, so does cerole) are the implications of the government making any ruling on the internet whatsoever. I love and respect the freedom we all enjoy online, and have been pleasantly surprised with its relative uninvolvement thus far. A case like this kind of makes me cringe – not because it “cuts into [my] profits” (I already do it, anyway), but because I get very worried hearing words like “judge” “forced” and “website” are found near each other.

This trial has made waves that very well may result in progress – more awareness of client needs, better coding, more accessibility. This trial also raises some valid questions, however. Were this not settled out of court, how would the judge instructed to ‘fix’ the site? What background or consultants would s/he have? Would this open a gate by precedent for the government to interfere with other sites? How much and in what way?

So, while I agree with and appreciate many of the “accessibility is good” arguments, I certainly think it’s simplifying the argument to go so far as effectively saying that “if you’re not in favor of this, you’re lazy and don’t care about the disabled”.

While I don’t really think that is at the heart of this discussion, it is related.

Once again, this goes into the “within reason” area of the ADA. The Japanese clothing designer mentioned earlier, assuming they are fairly small-time would likely not be expected to have a full HTML equivalent of a Flash website. However, if Target, Walmart, or any other large retailer were to have a website [where they sell products online], I would absolutely expect them to have a full HTML equivalent, no questions asked.

It’s all about size. Let’s compare the physical location versus website again. If you go to one of these small towns that have small shops with stair entryways. Because they are small, they aren’t required to have entrance ramps for those in wheelchairs. However, Walmart and Target, some of the largest retailers in the world, are required to have such ramps.

Same with the website. The small shop with a small website doesn’t necessarily have to have the digital ramp, though Walmart and Target should.

However, I would expect the both to try to accomidate both as reasonably as they could. I would imagine that a small shop owner may ask the person in a wheelchair if they need could help them by bringing them out what they would like to purchase (we’re assuming really small shop here). I’d also expect someone at Walmart to be willing to help someone in a wheelchair get something off of a high shelf.

It’s not like they are requiring Sue & Bob Small Business to have a $100,000,000,000 website that can be navigated by thought and mentally project the image into a blind persons mind. It’s saying that you should work within reason to accomidate them. If your gross income is only about $200,000, of course you can’t afford a $100,000 website. Likewise, when your income is in the 9+ digits, it’s not unfathomable for you to spend $100,000 to get a reasonably accessible website (though, I don’t think it would cost that much to get Target’s entire website redone from scratch).

Keep in mind this too: Someone with a walking stick swinging it back and forth as they walk and wearing dark glasses is obviously blind. But your classmate next to you doesn’t have the same indications that he’s color blind, or that he is legally blind in one eye. Your supervisor doesn’t wear a sign that says he is deaf in one ear and only at about 20% in the other. Your best friend may not wear a shirt that says “It hurts to move” to indicate that he has artritis in his hand that makes it difficult to type or perform fine precission with a mouse. Just because someone isn’t sitting in a wheel chair doesn’t mean they aren’t disabled.

You probably know a lot more people that have a disability than you realize. Not everyone walks up to everyone and says “Hi, my name is Bill and I have no feeling in my fingers.”

Excellent read. Well said, good job.. keep up the good work.

Please, do yourself a favor and do some real research. Don’t just glance at the people in the room with you and decide that accessibility is a waste of time.

Unfortunately samanime – this is the root of most ignorance in this thread, people don’t do their research and jump on the same wagon as the next person who has nothing but negativity to say without having facts or real user experience to back up the argument.

@blain

You are absolutely right. IF Target had of consulted with Mr.Sexton then there could have been so much avoided.. but.. if it didn’t happen to Target, it would eventually happen to someone else. Unfortunately for Target, they have to take the heat for it. Glad it happened.

@cerole

What? I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I followed this case throughout it’s proceedings. There are a few key points that a lot of people are missing that makes this case stand out against Sue & Bob Small Business’ website.

First off, if you notice, it wasn’t like he went to Target’s website and was like “Oh, this isn’t accessible! I’ll sue.” He spent “considerable energy”. I forget how much, but he basically contacted Target several times and asked them to make their website accessible and they flat out refused.

Secondly, Target has many specials and deals that are available only through their website. Even if he did “drive” to Target, he couldn’t get the same price or product. There was also no customer service which would help him in navigating the website to access these deals.

Now, onto the topic of what the government does and doesn’t make you do. The government actually does make you accommodate the disabled, because to not do so is discrimination. I’m not sure of the exact requirements, but basically you have to assist the disabled “within reason”. This means that larger buildings are required to have ramps. Large retailers are required to have people to assist the disabled. The list goes on.

Target is one of the largest retailers in the world. I don’t care to look up the exact figure right now, but I’m sure their net income is pretty high up there. They can afford a few extra thousand dollars to make their website accessible.

The ADA says that you can’t discriminate against the disabled and must help them within reason. What is within reason for Sue & Bob Small Business is a lot different than what is within reason for Target, Walmart, etc.

Additionally, you can’t sue (and win) someone for an inaccessible website without first contacting them and informing them of the problem. That means that if it was an honest mistake, you won’t just randomly lose money. You’ll have a chance to fix the problem first.

—————————————————————————–

Now, on matters more related to web development. 95% of accessibility is super simple to accomplish, and is enough for all but the largest websites. Simply use alt tags, limit images, gracefully degrade Javascript, etc. and you’ll be fine. To make an accessible website you simply have to follow best practices. These best practices benefit far more than those that are disabled as well.

The other 5% of accessibility takes a bit more thought, but isn’t that much work and those clients that require it will have the extra money to pay you for your time. These include subtitles in videos, transcripts of audio, etc. Nothing too difficult or too costly.

If you aren’t doing at least the 95% of that accessibility, to put it bluntly, you are a poor web developer and should seriously reconsider your profession.

Not to call anyone out, but I was particularly disgusted with the comment about money being “wasted” on accessibility when it is needed elsewhere. Making something more accessible is never a waste and can only help your business or product as it greatly increases your potential customers.

Also, disabled users aren’t a “small minority”. I forget the exact statistics, but something like one in five people has some kind of disability (likely not as severe as total blindness or deafness, but a disability none the less).

Please, do yourself a favor and do some real research. Don’t just glance at the people in the room with you and decide that accessibility is a waste of time. We’ve had at least one or two good discussions about the Target topic at Sitepoint. Take a look at those at the very least.

——————————————————————————

As for my personal opinion on this turn of events, I think it’s great, from many stand-points. While it is a great victory for disabled users, it’s also a great victory for (good) web developers.

This gives us another selling point where we have some hard facts to back up that a flimsy, inaccessible website can get you in trouble.

I’d post more in-depth info, but I’m afraid I have to get going.

I don’t see how Target would be liable for a site that is not online – a screen reader could figure that much out when it sees the 404 page. If the store was closed for the day for renovations, I don’t think the police would be knocking on their door telling them to open up or we’ll sue. I think your getting “access to a site” and “web accessibility” mixed up.

@halfasleeps

It’s a good question actually. Are you blind? If you are then you could potentially sue them I suppose. But building an ecommerce site in flash is just not good practice. Even then you should provide a full html equivalent of the Flash site. I’d be more impressed and feel more secure putting my credit card info into a site that was clean, easy to navigate, without animation & flash, and of course was reputable. It’s just not a good idea to even build a full flash e-commerce website… period…

Look at it this way. When you bought your first item online with your credit card, how scared were you that your number would be stolen and your credit card would be maxed out before you know it? Imagine what is like for someone with a disability to always have a lack in confidence that their identity would be stolen, credit cards maxed by hackers, all because they couldn’t navigate the site properly or it wasn’t 100% accessible to them? Not a good feeling is it?

6 Million is a lot of money, but sometimes it takes a large sum of money like this to open people’s eyes that they could be next.

It’s not like you haven’t heard of web standards before now, is it?”

I donut think anyone is saying that you shouldn’t optimize your site for the blind, I think we are just saying that you shouldn’t have to pay $6 mil if you don’t.