SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 226
  1. #1
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,423
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Target sued for poor accessibility

    http://news.com.com/Blind+patrons+su...l?tag=nefd.top

    Looks like blind poeple do care whether or not they can use a website. I hope they win and a lot of webmasters take notice. I don;t mean they become fearful if litigation. I mean they understand that the visually impaired do make purchases online, and it seems based on this article, are avid online shoppers.

  2. #2
    SitePoint Addict smittenbite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Friendswood
    Posts
    397
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i think that is really stupid to make a whole lawsuit out of especially since the person wants 'damages' to be paid which i believe there have been no 'damages', that is just rediculuous.

    they say the goal is to 'educate' people about making websites more usable for blind people or people with disabilities but yeah right there are better ways to educate people than to sue them. i dont think target did anything wrong, i think the most they can do it ask them to fix their website up a bit but they shouldnt be charged for something stupid like this especially since they are obviously not the only one, guess they just got unlucky to get picked on first.
    nothing.

  3. #3
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by smittenbite
    i think that is really stupid to make a whole lawsuit out of especially since the person wants 'damages' to be paid which i believe there have been no 'damages', that is just rediculuous.
    Um, if they're violating the law then why shouldn't he be able to file suit?
    Quote Originally Posted by THE ARTICLE
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by smittenbite
    they say the goal is to 'educate' people about making websites more usable for blind people or people with disabilities but yeah right there are better ways to educate people than to sue them.
    Not really; the threat of losses tends to light a fire under people that can't be matched with a pamphlet.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    169
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by smittenbite
    i think that is really stupid to make a whole lawsuit out of especially since the person wants 'damages' to be paid which i believe there have been no 'damages', that is just rediculuous.

    they say the goal is to 'educate' people about making websites more usable for blind people or people with disabilities but yeah right there are better ways to educate people than to sue them. i dont think target did anything wrong, i think the most they can do it ask them to fix their website up a bit but they shouldnt be charged for something stupid like this especially since they are obviously not the only one, guess they just got unlucky to get picked on first.
    I agree wholeheartedly.

  5. #5
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, UK
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As a principle yeh go for it.

    If i was blind I would still love to search the net

    Should he receive any money if he wins ???

    No!

    It's a principle !

    He (sorry or she) should be able to shop just like others but should they receive money just because they were not able to buy a product )

    R. Geza

  6. #6
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good luck with that... have a look at this.

    http://news.com.com/Disabilities+Act...87.html?tag=nl

  7. #7
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,423
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    If they had to use an alternate means of acquiring that product and it cost them money (paying someone to help them, having to physically go to the store to buy it) do you not think they deserve to be compensated for Target breaking the law?

  8. #8
    SitePoint Member dpsites's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    21
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I DISagree Completely...

    This is yet another example of a student sueing a company for "What-ever" reason in order to make some extra money.

    Yes, the guy is visually impared, and to a point, i can see where hes coming from, however, certainly disabilties rule out certain people. A wheelchair dependant person wouldnt sue a Rugby team because he couldnt play, so why should a Visually impared person sue a website because he cant make a purchase?

    The article states ...

    "Sexton, who is president of the California Association of Blind Students, said he has always been too frustrated with Target.com to reach the point of actually buying something. "

    Forgive me for being rude, But which part of "Well Dont Then" is this guy missing?

    We have cases like this in the UK all the time. Chefs sueing resturants because they've fallen over spagetti. Just recently infact, a women working in a Lawyers office Slipped on some paperwork, And SUED the company for damages using another Law firm!

    What the hell is the world coming too!

  9. #9
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've been wondering if something similar will happen in the UK. There's been potential for it to happen since 2005, possibly longer but I guess big business is safer here as we don't have the same sort of sueing culture. I think the most likely to use it would be charities.

    Should the company that owns the website or the web dev. company be responsible for the lack of accessibility - especially if it's not specificed in a spec. or contract?

  10. #10
    SitePoint Zealot ngi112's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I believe big companies should have some commodities for the visually impaired - but the internet is not made for blind people so this case is going to be interesting...
    ProxyTor - Submit your Proxy Site for free, fast.
    Parxy.com - Find a New Hobby!

  11. #11
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dpsites
    This is yet another example of a student sueing a company for "What-ever" reason in order to make some extra money.

    Yes, the guy is visually impared, and to a point, i can see where hes coming from, however, certainly disabilties rule out certain people. A wheelchair dependant person wouldnt sue a Rugby team because he couldnt play, so why should a Visually impared person sue a website because he cant make a purchase?
    The point is, that a website has a legal responsibility to ensure that it's website is accessable to disabled customers, in the same way that a retail store is (Minimum width between shelves, ramped entrance etc).

    I think that it's a shame that someone has to sue for companies to sit up and take notice, but it seems the only way to get them to listen is to hit them where it hurts - the pocket.

    I agree that this person should be doing this more to raise awareness. I'd like to think that any damages awarded are donated to an appropriate charity.

  12. #12
    SitePoint Addict Corobori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Concepcion, Chile
    Posts
    395
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    Um, if they're violating the law then why shouldn't he be able to file suit?
    Because I guess it's still possible to talk about a situation prior going to court. They are thousands of laws out there and their number is increasing every day so I suppose anybody might not be aware of each of them.

    I am really starting to feel bad about all those people willing to sue any people or company for just any reason. Perhaps I am a bit sensitiv about this today as I got 4 calls and 3 mails threatening me of various kind of legal action from a guy who was complaining about a quote made about him in one of my client's forum.
    Jean-Luc
    Corobori WebDesign
    Working in the Concepcion area, Chile, since 1999
    Follow us on Twitter

  13. #13
    Programming Team silver trophybronze trophy
    Mittineague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Springfield, Massachusetts
    Posts
    17,152
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    target site

    I don't think the person should win a lawsuit over it, but they do have a right to be frustrated. The home page's text can not be enlarged (in IE anyway) and if they wanted to use a text reader I think the 68 nested tables would be a problem. Target doesn't seem to be too concerned about alienating potential customers, the page is far from having valid mark-up.

  14. #14
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    440
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the customer filed a complaint first and the complaint was not addressed, then it's within reason to file a lawsuit. If the customer didn't even file a complaint, then I'd say the customer is just trying to get some cash.

  15. #15
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cmorland
    Good luck with that... have a look at this.

    http://news.com.com/Disabilities+Act...87.html?tag=nl
    That's the federal law. Target's being sued under California's law, which hasn't been ruled on in the way your article states.

  16. #16
    Non-Member Waraas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Idaho Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    350
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If they where blind then why would they be on the computer?

  17. #17
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Waraas
    If they where blind then why would they be on the computer?
    Because blind people can use computers too, and it can be a great help to them in being able to function as a normal human being.

  18. #18
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Baltimore-based plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Goldstein said the suit's larger goal is educating companies about Web site accessibility issues that can be fixed relatively inexpensively.
    It may not be too expensive for Target to adjust their site but what about the Mom and Pop shops? You know this will trickle down to every living thing. The technology is just too young to start expecting every minority group to get their way. Are they going to complain the site is fully aural, too?

    BTW, I had three friends who are blind and I dated for years a girl who's whole family of seven was blind. So I'm totally aware of their problems. Ways come about for these people to be able to do such things because a market spring up around it. Trying to force the issue at this time is beyond comprehension. (I will withhold my opinion of lawyers)

  19. #19
    SitePoint Zealot ngi112's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a couple of friends who enjoy sueing random companies for pocket money. This whole lawsuit reminds me of them - for I highly doubt that a blind person would ever try to purchase something from the internet WITHOUT the help of another human being. What if he purchases something different than intended? Obviously the internet is very young and before a computer cable can be connected to a blind person so he can understand whatever is in the monitor, I highly doubt that every webpage will be in compliance with this.
    ProxyTor - Submit your Proxy Site for free, fast.
    Parxy.com - Find a New Hobby!

  20. #20
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy
    wwb_99's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    10,629
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What about people who cannot afford an internet connection? Is amazon required to open brick and mortar stores since they are inaccessible without pricey equipment and services.

    Section 508 applies to government. Period. This is not to say one should make their sites intentionally unfriendly to those with special needs. But I would loath to see every site on the net be required to go through the necessary pain to meet 508.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    141
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well I don't realy know who's side to be on. I guess every website owner would like their site to be compliant but realistically not everyone has the resources to do so.

    Larger companies probably should be liable, just like if you build a brick and mortar place for the public it must cater for the disabled.

    I don't think any commercial script/software should be released without it being compliant. It realy should become second nature to designers, like wearing a seat-belt.

  22. #22
    SitePoint Addict smittenbite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Friendswood
    Posts
    397
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i understand that people would easily get frustrated over this,but to ask them to pay 'damages"? where is this 'damage' coming from? is he sick now because he didnt get to order a cd from target ? if he was just suing to get target to fix their site then maybe that would be different. but to ask for damages , no way. the thing says that you have to provide equal access for everyone, target isnt getting in the way of the person getting online, the fact that they cant use the internet isnt Target's fault. if thre was a guy in a wheelchair and he wanted to go into a store, but he was too weak to wheel himself up the ramp provided, is he gonna be able to sue that store too cause hes too weak to use the ramp? come on .
    nothing.

  23. #23
    Non-Member Waraas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Idaho Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    350
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    Because blind people can use computers too, and it can be a great help to them in being able to function as a normal human being.

    I still dont get it. How is an ATL-text going to be usfull so someone that cant see it? This is liking sueing McDonalds cas there hot chocolate is too hot! They will never win...

  24. #24
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't really get it. What statute or federal law is this based on? ADA? I read the article briefly and saw that it had to do with accessibility to public places. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I hardly consider a website a 'public place.' For the most part it seems like a marketing tool to me..and sueing Target for not being an accessible website would be akin to sueing them for a highway-side billboard that doesn't have braille or a speaker system. Obviously it's not the same...but it's not like a blind person is somehow prohibited from visiting target.com. It may be more difficult to do everything that a seeing person can, but isn't that why it's called a disability? This kid isn't somehow unable to send Target customer reps an email asking for info, so it doesn't seem to me to be much different from him going to a retail store.

    I guess this is kind of good for you designers who pride yourselves on designing to web and accessibility standards. You finally have an answer that people will listen to when they ask, "Why should I care?" "So you don't get sued."

  25. #25
    Non-Member Waraas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Idaho Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    350
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I still dont get it. How is an ATL-text going to be usfull so someone that cant see it? This is liking sueing McDonalds cas there hot chocolate is too hot when you spill it on yourself! They will never win...


    *Edit... I think Target should counter sue the people that are suing them for the costs is takes to add ALT-tags on each of there images, too add a sitemap, and to show there prices better.

    If they win then this will give everyone will try to take avantage of stupid idea to get money of of big corporate businesses.

    I have an idea! Tomarow im going to go into the movie theater and watch a movie, then im going to tell them im deaf and Im going to sue them for one million dollars because they do not supply deaf word at the bottom of the screen so i can read whats going on in the movie(subtitles).

    these guys are just some stupid college liberal group getting them publicity. This is why they do these things...i personally think it's best just to ignore them...


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •