Target sued for poor accessibility

[samsm]

I still dont get it. How is an ATL-text going to be usfull so someone that cant see it?

There is special software that speaks what is on the monitor that blind people use so that they can use computers. Jaws is one example of this. Jaws can read HTML, but oddly structured sites can be confusing, as can unlabeled images.

[Waraas]

Ok, im going to download that pogram and read the reast of this thread... haha

[samsm]

I don't really get it. What statute or federal law is this based on? ADA? I read the article briefly

Here

Specifically, the suit argues that Target is violating the California Disabled Persons Act, which guarantees full and equal access for people with disabilities to all public places. It also argues that Target is violating the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, because blind patrons have been denied full and equal access to Target.com and have been provided services inferior to non-disabled patrons.

Geeze

[pergesu]

Specifically, the suit argues that Target is violating the California Disabled Persons Act, which guarantees full and equal access for people with disabilities to all public places. It also argues that Target is violating the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, because blind patrons have been denied full and equal access to Target.com and have been provided services inferior to non-disabled patrons.

As I said in my initial response, I'm not sure how a web site would be covered here. It's not a public place to which blind people are prevented from going.

[samsm]

As I said in my initial response, I'm not sure how a web site would be covered here. It's not a public place to which blind people are prevented from going.

I'm sorry, you did say that.

I think it is just a matter of interpretation. A lot of existing laws were built on interpretations that don't exactly mesh with the law's language.

[thedrivellc]

I think this whole lawsuit is a load of BS. I hate how these kind of "minority" groups can sue people to make life harder for everone else. I don't think they'll win on their basis (if I'm reading cnet's article right). California code 11135-11139.8 does not apply to private sector companies. It only:

provides protection from discrimination from any program or activity that is conducted, funded directly by, or receives any financial assistance from the State.

This is the same with federal section 508. It only provides for publicly accessible areas and publicly funded agencies. The internet is not listed under that section (http://news.com.com/Disabilities+Act...87.html?tag=nl).

On a last note, I believe that private businesses should still have the right to conduct a fair business in the way they deem fit. If the blind person really wants to buy something from Target, there are plenty of other ways for him/her to do so.

[jake4974]

It is a little bit ridiculous, the quickness with people resort to law-suits. No financial damage was done, so why would financial compensation be awarded? As to breaking a law, that is up to a judge, I do take issue with financial repercussions in a non-financial issue.

however, certainly disabilties rule out certain people.

I suppose that sounds really harsh, but it is true. I am unable to use one entire side of my body correctly, unfortunately I think suing fastener manufacturers would be unreasonable, nor overall necessarily purposeful (buttons and zippers are very difficult, snaps are easy, but very ugly - shoelaces, don't even get me started). Can openers, washing dishes by hand, showering, using a computer (even if I use a 1-handed keyboard, which is actually just a keyboard with useful keys removed to make room for HUGE keys). All of these things pose a unique difficulty that could easily justify me spending several lifetimes involved in litigation. While efforts are made to provide accessibility (reasonably is the real question), I believe a VERY important and defining "argument" about this issue has been made

It may not be too expensive for Target to adjust their site but what about the Mom and Pop shops?

Unfortunately, just from a monetary point of view, accessibility is so inhibitively expensive in some cases, basically it turns into an all or nothing situation.
Taken to an extreme, it's a rather startlingly short step to someone saying "I have no education degree, I'm educationally disabled and I have a right to be a teacher"
And really the argument about it being different because education is a choice, a disability isn't, in the end does not really seem to hold water, the vast majority of disabilities are acquired as an unexpected result of a persons action or inaction.
<-- pointless smiley, I just wanted to check it out

[thedrivellc]

Darn thing truncated the link.

{http://news.com.com/Disabilities+Act+doesnt+cover+Web%2C+court+says/2100-1030_3-5384087.html?tag=nl}

[samsm]

Because I guess it's still possible to talk about a situation prior going to court.

And they did:

The NFB wrote to Target in May, asking it to make the site more accessible, according to the plaintiffs. Negotiations broke down in January, which led to the filing of the lawsuit, the organization said.

[Ted S]

One of the interesting things about this case has to who the suit is aimed at. As the article hints, Target uses Amazon for much of their website and e-commerce functionality as do a few other retailers like Toys R Us. This being said at what point is Target actually liable and when does it fall on Amazon, and, if Amazon is not based in California, will the California law apply? I'm assuming they picked Target because it is a well known company with a B&M presence -- pick a company that is web-only and you complicate things (Target as a b&m with California stores would clearly have knowledge of this law and an expectation to understand it).

Aside from the issue at hand, this could (if a case is actually filled and ruled on) impact a lot more than just blind people. If the case is ruled for the plaintiff we may see all sorts of off-line laws being applied to the internet. Right now a lot of what is done only really does get by federal and state rules but all that could. change, or at least the door could open for more suits to push for that change.

Of course first it has to make it to a court and not be dropped, settled or dismissed on day one

[Worldbuilder]

I'm sorry, but this whole thing is stupid... I'm not an insensitive oaf, but listen...

There are some things in this world that handicapped people just can't do. And those of us who are not handicapped shouldn't try to sugarcoat it for them. Blind people shouldn't drive. Deaf people shouldn't be record producers. And fat guys shouldn't coach sports. But I digress...

The point is that not everyone is capable. And no institition can be reasonably expected to cater to EVERYONE. It's not even in the vicinity of realistic. We live in a sue-happy world, it's as simple as that. If the judge has any common sense at all, he'll say, "This is pointless, <insert gavel sound> next case."

I don't see Wal-Mart, Best Buy, CompUSA, Circuit City, and every other major retailer getting sued, do you? Why? Because realistically they're not doing anything wrong. What is this guy really complaining about anyway?! I'm sorry, but if you're blind, you're blind. You need to accept the fact that there are certain things you just can't do...

If he wants to buy something from Target, or anywhere else for that matter, have a friend or family member take him to a store and help him. Or call. Or write. But don't go to a website (a fundamentally VISUAL medium), get frustrated, and sue when you get YOURSELF upset.

I'm not ignorant to the plight of the disabled, be it from birth or some accident/problem during life. I have my own problems (although not to this extreme, I admit) and the one thing I don't do or accept is whining and crying about it. Accept your limitations, revel in what you still CAN effectively do, and deal with the rest in a more dignified and appropriate manner.

Chris

[sa seba]

This law suit is just plain wrong.

[aspen]

This type of legal abuse is very common.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/c..._05-11-05.html
http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=9613

In addition I read a very long article in either Forbes or Business 2.0 about it some months back.

The fact is, nothing is going to ever be 100% accessible, and there are people who go around looking for a place and purposely trying to find "difficulties" with it. Then they file a lawsuit.

As much as political correctness says otherwise. Blind people are not like people who can see. Paralyzed people are not like people who can walk. They are different, they cannot do the same things. It sucks, but its the truth.

What's next, the deaf suing the phone company?

I also do not like the idea of the goverment legislating businesses. There is no right to shop at Target written in the constitution. Let the market work as markets should, if someone doesn't like Target, they can shop at Walmart, or Sears, or JC Penny. There is more than one general retailer in this country, let the companies compete for the blind dollars. Lawsuits like this just clog the legal system and give lawyers big paychecks while raising the price of the products we buy every day.

[full.collapse]

The college student just wants money. End of story.

[ngi112]

agreed

[deronsizemore]

I understand where he is coming from, but there are WAY to many people suing just for the hell of it now days. I mean seriously, if he's that pissed off about Target's website, there are only...umm...a hundred other websites he could have got the same product from. Why does he absolutely have to shop at Target anyway? Yes, Target's breaking a state law and I feel bad for the guy, because they have rights just like the rest of us, but C' MON!

[drhowarddrfine]

Let me put it this way. This wouldn't happen without the lawyers. I'll bet it was a lawyers idea.

[Antonbomb22]

wow everyone thinks everyone is a conman today. people who are handicapped have the same rights normal people do. target has access to high priced designers etc. so there is no reason they can not be disabled friendly. beyond being required by law Target should take the first step to provide accessbility standards. that would greatly increase their PR and create a movement among other businesses to follow web standards for coding and accessbility. a website can be interpreted as a public place as it publically accessibile from anywhere, thus making it a public place. Target should not however pay damages to the plaintant but vow to improve their websites accessibility for the disabled.

also in response to the opinion mentioned above about government in business, that is plan ignorance. without government regulation our economy would be a disaster. the government is there to protect consumers by providing competition and equality. every united states citizen has right to pursuit of happiness which includes shopping at stores which are all required to meet regulation set by the government so these disabled people can have a chance to live a normal life.

[MadCool]

I hope target wins this lawsuit. It's just crazy.

[LinhGB]

Can we look at this from a developer's perspective please? Did you folks read the complaints mentioned in that article?

- Missing alt text
- No accessible image maps
- No logical or sensible association between product and price
- Requiring a mouse to complete transaction

These issues are EASY to fix, even for small Mum&Dad online shops. It is easy to make sites that cater for the disabled, if the designers follow existing, well-documented guidelines from the W3C. Target can afford the best designers, so there is no excuse for them not to make their site accessible.

I hope this student wins the case. It'll be great for designers that understand accessibility and usability: it increases demand for them. I also hope that this will also extend to support for multiple platforms and browsers at least for certain kinds of websites, like government ones. I don't know about other countries but Australian government sites sometimes require javascript on for some certain functionalities which can be replaced easily by something else more accessible, or very specific browser detection and blocking (ie non-IE, non-Netscape - Moz browsers don't qualify as one - are kicked out).

[copter]

Its not the sites fault people have bad eye sight, if you have bad eye sight you should expect it... its no ones fault and if the site owner wants his site for normal people then thats fair.

[benlowry]

The time & money spent making sites 'accessible' would be far better spent on:

- Better accessibility software, which is a more achievable goal than making x,000,000,000 sites accessible, which is not an achievable goal.

- Medical research. If I was blind or motor-impaired I'd rather I was fixed than 'the internet'. Being able to hear or navigate a page is not going to be anywhere near as satisfactory as walking/seeing/whatever unaided.

How many billions have been spent on developing accessibility guidelines, laws, implementation etc?

[Ulchie]

Yes I feel for the blind person. But get over it and buy from another merchant who really is sympathetic and does try and strive for their business by having accessible sites!!!! There is more than one merchant selling the same things Target is!!!

The part of the lawsuit that bugs me is the: Sueing for damages ... what amount of damages is he suing for? Is it for the $50 that he paid for his mom to drive to Target and pick him up a pair of socks when he could have purchased the same item from walmart.com or costco.com or a million other places? Or is it for a $5million dollar retirement package because he was unable to buy his favorite CD at Christmas online at target.com when he could have once again used another merchant that is blind friendly?

It is funny that the blind advocacy group published everything bad about the company yet they are unwilling to say how much money they are going to get if they win. I bet its a big number if they are too afraid to say how much they are asking. Undesignated amount=rich.

Target should only be sued in order to make the site blind friendly. The blind being personally compensated... for being blind...well **** he could make a career out of suing companies, one after another after another and he would never have to work. Especialyl if each lawsuit nets him a huge private settlement for his 'damages'. LOL. We could all find things that are unsafe or don't meet laws throughout our lifetimes. Does that always entitle us to a massive financial settlement? Does that mean we should win a million dollar settlements?

IF HE WANTED TO PROVE A POINT TO OTHER COMPANIES BY DECIDING TO SUE FOR A FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT, WOULDN"T HE WANT TO PUBLISH THE SUM OF MONEY HE IS SUEING FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE AND EVERYONE ELSE CAN SAY, "hey I don't want to get sued for $x million like Target.com!" But instead it is private info. Ashamed to say the large amount of money you want? Cash grab. Well at least he attempts robbery in a legal manner, LOL. Then if it was a large financial figure it would scare the other company's into making the internet more blind friendly. But keeping it private... lol.

No one is perfect, no company is perfect, life isn't perfect. Trying to make this world a little more perfect isn't a bad thing. Trying to seek financial reward because you found a particular flaw. Wow.

Sad. I hope target fights the financial damages clause. Then I hope Target turns around and DOES remake the site so it is blind friendly just to be blind friendly. But I don't think the blind should benefit financially just because they are blind and a company did not realize their website was fully accessible. It is pretty easy to miss the mark by accident when you don't use the website from a blind perspective. Accidents aren't always cardinal sins! What about all the other blind people? Do they derserve a peice of that settlement? But they may never know how much he got! None of them could buy from Target.com so does that make every blind person entitled to an equal settlement? C'mon. Money is his prime motivation.

Scary world we live in. Now we can't even forget the alt tags in our websites! Guess that means ill be making all my contact info in a JPG without any alt tags on a private registered domain. Yes, I don't mind using ALT tags, but using alt tags to describe an entire five sentence ad ends up looking like search engine spam! Can't always use alt tag for everything if there are too many words in the image.

[Ulchie]

Oh and BTW, Websites aren't Public Places. They are a public media. Media isn't a place. Websites are intellectual property, not a public 'place'. Intellectual property is outside of the public domain and property rights probably won't apply.

Are you not legally able to create your own intellectual property with copyrights and protection against others from forcing you to change the property when it is you that allowed them to see it in the first place?

THey allow other people to use thier peice of intellectual property but it is not completely public. Where is our freedom to create our own intellectual property? Besides internet surfers request the document which are privately owned forms of intellectual copyrights from private servers. Freedoms? Anyone? Besides, the documents must be REQUESTED. It isn't just sitting there for all to see. You must REQUEST the documents from the host. Offer and Acceptance order may actually matter.

Oh well. Anyways, this got me a thinking!!! (Rare, I know!). Now lets see, if I am color blind (prove i aint ) and some websites are using colors that I can not see, does that mean I can sue for 'undesignated damages'? I know a lot of ugly sites using not-very-friendly colors. Mmmm Money. The more I think about it, the more I have to say, "I must be color blind." I can only seen green at this point in time.

[jake4974]

The time & money spent making sites 'accessible' would be far better spent on:

- Better accessibility software, which is a more achievable goal than making x,000,000,000 sites accessible, which is not an achievable goal.

- Medical research. If I was blind or motor-impaired I'd rather I was fixed than 'the internet'. Being able to hear or navigate a page is not going to be anywhere near as satisfactory as walking/seeing/whatever unaided.

How many billions have been spent on developing accessibility guidelines, laws, implementation etc?

I absolutely could not agree more.

Off Topic:

PLEASE TELL ME I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO REALLY DISLIKES THESE SMELLIES, ER, SMILIES