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.