SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 226
  1. #76
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rabies
    Are higher end stores that sell $1000 shirts discriminating against the poor? Are restaurants required by law to sell vegetarian dishes?
    Poor example. You can't quating buying luxury items with shopping for basic necessities.

  2. #77
    Serial Publisher silver trophy aspen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    East Lansing, MI USA
    Posts
    12,937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The deaf have TDD/TTY and relays for phone service. They're already covered, hence no lawsuits.
    So... Vinny, how does that help the deaf people hear who is on the other side of the line?

    Suing for damages after months of trying to perseude them to improve the site
    You need to check your spelling doc... but also... do you really think this guy just wanted them to fix the site? Come on, don't be obtuse, why wouldn't target comply if that is all he wanted? He was blackmailing them, and they wouldn't pay up.

    It's a private business and they lose potential customers by not being accessible. That's their loss and their problem. I can see how all people regardless of race, religion, age or disability have the right to essential services. But Target is not an essential service. It's a retail business.
    Exactly... stop all the bleeding heart crap. No one here is marching the blind off to gas chambers.

    Target shouldn't put a velvet rope outside their stores and deny disabled people acces... THAT is discrimination.

    Not accounting for every special need of every person who could ever use their store.... that is not discrimination and anyone who says it is is just trying to push a hot button issue to make a point.

    Honestly... you know what the solution here is? Leave it to the government to inforce it's laws. It already does for so many things, like telemarketing. If a consumer has a problem with a company and feels the company is breaking the law they can contact their attorney general, the FCC or FTC, or any number of government agencies.

    Unless they're just looking for a payday....
    Chris Beasley - I publish content and ecommerce sites.
    Featured Article: Free Comprehensive SEO Guide
    My Guide to Building a Successful Website
    My Blog|My Webmaster Forums

  3. #78
    Serial Publisher silver trophy aspen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    East Lansing, MI USA
    Posts
    12,937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee
    Poor example. You can't quating buying luxury items with shopping for basic necessities.
    Interesting word... necessity. Do you maintain that the plaintiff needed to shop at Target.com?
    Chris Beasley - I publish content and ecommerce sites.
    Featured Article: Free Comprehensive SEO Guide
    My Guide to Building a Successful Website
    My Blog|My Webmaster Forums

  4. #79
    Non-Member jake4974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Down the road, it's where I'll always be
    Posts
    357
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rabies
    Are higher end stores that sell $1000 shirts discriminating against the poor? Are restaurants required by law to sell vegetarian dishes?
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee
    Poor example. You can't quating buying luxury items with shopping for basic necessities.
    I think that is actually a pretty valid example.
    First off I do not recall seeing in the article anything about what this fella was trying to purchase, but really that is neither here nor there.
    In reality, necessities are shelter, food, and arguably love. Everything else, (including toilet paper), could be deemed luxuries.

  5. #80
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aspen
    Interesting word... necessity. Do you maintain that the plaintiff needed to shop at Target.com?
    No. But Target offers a one-stop solution for buying necessities and is a natural choice to shop at for that very reason. It's the first place many people think of when they need something.

  6. #81
    Serial Publisher silver trophy aspen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    East Lansing, MI USA
    Posts
    12,937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ....But not the only option.




    I found the article I thought of previously... it was an AP article so was reprinted in many places... but apparently most newspapers remove old stories from their database. I could only find the whole thing here:

    http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/ring2/7.html

    The crappy thing is that if this target suit gets publicity I'm sure it'll inspire these lawyers and gold digging people the idea to go after websites next. Yippee!
    Chris Beasley - I publish content and ecommerce sites.
    Featured Article: Free Comprehensive SEO Guide
    My Guide to Building a Successful Website
    My Blog|My Webmaster Forums

  7. #82
    Serial Publisher silver trophy aspen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    East Lansing, MI USA
    Posts
    12,937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Look at it this way....

    The plaintiff claims that the Internet has allowed him to be more independent.

    However, if Target had no website, they would not have been sued. As I said before, the company as a whole is accessible. Had this guy gone to Target he would have certainly found the building accessible, and, if his pride was able to swallow it, he probably could have had an employee help find exactly what he wanted.

    So, if the first step is being more accessible to the Blind is a website (according to the plaintiff websites are a huge help to him) and the second step is an accessible website, then Target is being punished for taking only one step so far. Had they taken no steps they wouldn't be in trouble.

    Fair? I think not.
    Chris Beasley - I publish content and ecommerce sites.
    Featured Article: Free Comprehensive SEO Guide
    My Guide to Building a Successful Website
    My Blog|My Webmaster Forums

  8. #83
    ☆★☆★ 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 aspen
    So... Vinny, how does that help the deaf people hear who is on the other side of the line?
    The relay operator types out what the person on the other end is saying, and that "transcript" gets sent over the phone line to a teleprinter. The deaf person doesn't hear, but they do get to find out what the other person is saying.

    Look, I'll be the first to admit that someone with a disability like blindness or hearing loss won't experience the same quality of life/service that someone without any disabilities will, and any accessibility expert will agree with me. That's the very definition of disability and anybody arguing that we can't make it exactly the same for them is arguing at a strawman. However, there are many things that can be done to help those with disabilities gain a useful experience out of browsing the web, and most of those things require only a few extra minutes of time and brain power.

  9. #84
    SitePoint Member daestrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    First of all, I think a lot of people posting here have no idea what they are talking about. The details of the case is posted here. http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php

    I think it just shows that most 'web developers' don't have any understanding of web standards and accessibility. It's not that hard to develop a website to W3C WAI A at least. Posts about 'Blind people driving', 'internet is not made for blind people' just shows blatant ignorance. I hope none of these people lose their sight as this would be the only way they would understand.

    That aside, the person being discriminated against wants Target to make it's site accessible and not just after 'damages'. Target had 8 months to make changes to it's website and refused. After all the negative press, yesterday it made small changes to it's submit buttons to make them more accessible.

    This isn't about being PC it's about everyone's rights to equality. Target are breaking laws and it's sad that they had to be taken to court.

  10. #85
    SitePoint Guru hifigrafix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just popped open their source and sure enough - ALT tags

  11. #86
    Non-Member jake4974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Down the road, it's where I'll always be
    Posts
    357
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by daestrom
    This isn't about being PC it's about everyone's rights to equality. Target are breaking laws and it's sad that they had to be taken to court.
    Some of the definitions of equality are "being the same or identical" and "showing no variance in". I don't think anyone really wants that. Discrimination on the basis of a difference seems to me is exactly what people want, it is usually only the direction of this discrimination people complain about, which is primarily political. I would say human politics are exactly exactly what this is about. PC is probably an over and mis-used term.
    I totally agree, Target is breaking a law and it is sad to see it have to go to court. While I feel that it was probably pushed by the plaitiffs insistence on receiving cash, I do find the resistance by Target to make the website more accessible strange and probably went a long way to ensure a probably unnecessary lawsuit.
    I think by the letter of the law the fact that a website was deemed not a public place in a federal case provides Target with a legit legal stance, but the moral stance that is reflecting is highly questionable.

  12. #87
    SitePoint Evangelist Unit7285's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    514
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by daestrom
    First of all, I think a lot of people posting here have no idea what they are talking about. The details of the case is posted here. http://www.dralegal.org/cases/privat...b_v_target.php
    You're absolutely right, people should read the official details before commenting on the case. This is the website of Disability Rights Advocates, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this case. It clears up some of the bucketloads of misinformation in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by daestrom
    Posts about 'Blind people driving', 'internet is not made for blind people' just shows blatant ignorance.
    Do you think blind people should drive?

    PS Welcome to SitePoint and your first post.

    Paul

  13. #88
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Based on the arguments I'm hearing from the people supporting Sexton, roads also need to be more accesible to blind people, because currently they can't drive. It doesn't seem fair that the government uses the tax money of blind people to pay for roads that blind people can't drive on. The government should be required to allow blind people to drive on the roads, since roads are public places.

    Also, disabled people in wheelchairs should be allowed to walk on the sidewalks. The sidewalks are there to walk on, and currently they aren't as "available" as they should be to disabled people. They need the assistance of a wheelchair or a similar device, just like the blind people need the assistance of someone with working eyes to use Target.com.

    I don't see how Target.com is a public place anyway. It's privately owned.
    GameSiteScript - Get your own arcade website.
    MediaSiteScript - Get your own video/flash/picture website.
    ImageSquash - Compress, convert, and resize images - all online.

  14. #89
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    frankly, i'm shocked and disgusted to see some of the usual "should blind people also drive" and "there are just things handicapped people can't do" comments. that's exactly why i'd strongly welcome it if this law suit was successful...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  15. #90
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by LouisR
    Based on the arguments I'm hearing from the people supporting Sexton, roads also need to be more accesible to blind people, because currently they can't drive. It doesn't seem fair that the government uses the tax money of blind people to pay for roads that blind people can't drive on. The government should be required to allow blind people to drive on the roads, since roads are public places.
    don't be ridiculous. blind people can't drive, and no blind person will ever make that request (or even file a suit to that effect). however, they can expect that public transport will allow them on, and make reasonable adjustments to allow them to use it.

    Also, disabled people in wheelchairs should be allowed to walk on the sidewalks. The sidewalks are there to walk on, and currently they aren't as "available" as they should be to disabled people. They need the assistance of a wheelchair or a similar device, just like the blind people need the assistance of someone with working eyes to use Target.com.
    again, don't be ridiculous. people in wheelchairs are not suing for the right to "walk". however, they are perfectly right to expect reasonable adjustments such as curb cuts. they are fully aware that they require assistive technology such as wheelchairs, but they're right to expect that - once they have a wheelchair - there are no further obstacles deliberately put in their way, and that - where possible - simple accommodations are made (suitable ramps, or even considerations in the design stages, such as making sure lift doors are wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs etc).

    blind people do not need someone with working eyes. a website that even takes into consideration the most basic accessibility guidelines can and will be navigable and usable by blind users with a screen reader. there is no excuse for not implementing at least basic accessibility considerations in web design. simply saying "they'll just need a sighted helper" is a degrading statement.
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  16. #91
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aspen
    Had this guy gone to Target he would have certainly found the building accessible, and, if his pride was able to swallow it, he probably could have had an employee help find exactly what he wanted.
    ah...so it's all about their pride, eh? how about black people sitting at the front of the bus? can they not swallow their pride and sit at the back?
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  17. #92
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aspen
    Whats ignorant is thinking disabled people are normal. They are not normal.
    nice, particularly coming from a "team leader"...

    The idea that everyone, regardless of their personal condition, has a "right" to the exact same life is one of the most ridiculous notions of the modern era.
    it is ridiculous, because that's not the notion. the notion is that nobody should be unnecessarily disadvantaged. people with disabilities don't want to pretend that they haven't got different needs, but they do want to be able to carry out a normal enough life without any unnecessary barriers being put in their way.

    Here in the US we spend 10x more per year to send one disabled kid to a normal highschool than we spend on the smartest kid in that highschool. Then we wonder why our kids aren't as smart as those from other countries. Chances are the disabled kid probably doesn't even know the difference, its only so his parents can feel their kid is normal.
    there we go...you've cracked it. maybe we should start a eugenics program. makes me glad to know that there is legislation like the ADA when i read some of the comments spewed forth on this thread...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  18. #93
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree Redux. really LouisR. you are missing the point. no wonder a lawsuit like this comes up.

    It isn't hard to do alt-text and it makes a big difference to a visually impaired person. And hello since blind people are not likely to drive don't you think that shopping on the web and having it delivered to your home would be a dream come true?

    And given that most large US companies(epecially Retail) have some staff to focus on accessibilty issues I can see where it could be frustrating that simple things are not designed in and then to be stonewalled when asked to remediate.

    I am sure we could all come up with a nonsensical offensive comment about some group or another, but what good would it do?

    sitepoint should be embarrased by all the comments from the so-called sitepoint elite in this thread.

    keep on talking though because it gives great insight into who is here

    I hope this thread is spidered by the search engines soon.

  19. #94
    SitePoint Addict RRWH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think this is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge.

    If this lawsuit is sucessful, will EVERY Print media then be the target of visually imparied person - will Newspapers have to offer a MP3 version of what is printed for the visually impaired, what, they want a free MP3 player as well and only want to pay a buck for it as well - excuse me for being insensitive and cynical.

    This looks not to really be a case of Target ignoring the laws, but by having a website they are Actually being more accessable than just being a bricks and mortar store. What do they get for trying to provide alternative means to shop? Well it seems a lawsuit!

    Let me ask just one question. what would this or any other visually impaired person have done even 10-12 years ago? There was no widespread Internet or online shopping at all - they would have had to visit a store and seek assistance by a shop assistant - maybe their job title gives a hint as to what they do.

    Will someone who hand out a pamphlet have to give away an Audio version as well or risk being sued. What next? Audio bumper stickers?

    How about this: I am a photographer, and If I traded in California, and if a visually impaired person wanted a phot, would I be obliged to include a commentary on the picture, along with a 3D rendition of the scene or risk being sued because a visually impaired person was not able to experience something that is presented as a visual medium?

    This sort of lawsuit actually makes all of America and their sue first ask later mentality the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

    Let me guess, the only winners from this frivilous and insane action will be the Laywers (as is the case for most of these type of lawsuits).

    I think someone handed over the asylum to the inmates to make all the decisions.

    No, I am not discriminating against the visually impaired, I have a family member who is blind and has been all his life - He is smart enough to realise that he cannot do everything that everyone else can and to simply get on with his life and not blame someone else (or expect them to pay) for his lot in life.

  20. #95
    SitePoint Guru LinhGB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    902
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RRWH
    I think this is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge.

    If this lawsuit is sucessful, will EVERY Print media then be the target of visually imparied person - will Newspapers have to offer a MP3 version of what is printed for the visually impaired, what, they want a free MP3 player as well and only want to pay a buck for it as well - excuse me for being insensitive and cynical.
    Seriously some of you really need to read about basic accessibility and design before contributing your 2c. Visually impaired people have screen readers. No MP3 needed.

    Edit: pardon me, I thought you were talking about online newspapers. For your information, there are special editions of your normal newspapers for disabled people. The Internet obviously makes it a lot easier as you can serve 1 edition that is accessible both by normal people and disabled people.

    Let me ask just one question. what would this or any other visually impaired person have done even 10-12 years ago?
    It is discriminating if we keep creating innovations to make our lives better but leave out those unfortunate ones, especially when the efforts needed to allow them to enjoy the improved quality of life are minimal like in this case.

    To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed about the SitePoint community in this. I would never expect to read some of these comments, like "what if blind people want to drive", from a community of web professionals. It's more like something you read from Joe Blow's 2-bit blog.
    "I disapprove of what I say,
    but I will defend to the death my right to say it."

  21. #96
    Non-Member jake4974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Down the road, it's where I'll always be
    Posts
    357
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by redux
    nice, particularly coming from a "team leader"...
    No offense intended, but get off the soapbox dude, it's crackin' under the weight of all these people.

    Deciding what is appropriate for people to think on the basis of a badge goes fundamentally against the point of view you're taking.
    There are "badge folk" on both side of the issue, and both have used what could be cast as very derogatory terms
    ...it can be a great help to them in being able to function as a normal human being.
    ^ "badge person on one side"

    Whats ignorant is thinking disabled people are normal. They are not normal.
    ^ "badge person on the opposite side"

    Many disabled people I know (and I know a huge number) would go absolutely ballistic at either comment. This is a prime example of an unexpected negative side effect of the "PC craze", we tend to get so hung up on inappropriate words we don't hear the message.
    Many thanks to Stymiee for bringing up an issue people seem pretty passionate about (I'm not kidding or being sarcastic, thanks stymiee)

  22. #97
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jake4974
    No offense intended, but get off the soapbox dude, it's crackin' under the weight of all these people.
    i'm quite comfortable on my soapbox, thanks.

    There are "badge folk" on both side of the issue, and both have used what could be cast as very derogatory terms
    i'm using language that he can hopefully understand.

    Many disabled people I know (and I know a huge number) would go absolutely ballistic at either comment.
    i know a good number as well, and they're far less likely to pick up on that one use of the word "normal" in my answer than aspen's diatribe.

    This is a prime example of an unexpected negative side effect of the "PC craze", we tend to get so hung up on inappropriate words we don't hear the message.
    i think the message came through loud and clear in both statements.
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  23. #98
    SitePoint Addict Php_penguin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Colwyn Bay, Wales, UK
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    is Flash accessible to blind people?

    Ive just never seen a screen-reader which can look at flash effectively.

    why isnt the f**cker suing Adobe?

  24. #99
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Php_penguin
    is Flash accessible to blind people?
    flash can be made reasonably accessible, yes. a good, recent example is the site for j.k.rowling

    http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups...jkrowling.hcsp
    http://weblogs.macromedia.com/access...rowlingcom.cfm
    http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/index.p...essible-flash/

    Ive just never seen a screen-reader which can look at flash effectively.
    and i assume you have extensive experience in the field, yes?

    why isnt the f**cker suing Adobe?
    ah, he's a f*cker now? interesting...

    and anyway, if a large company site exclusively uses flash to present their content, offering no alternative and not making any efforts towards making the flash itself even baseline accessible to users of the more recent screen readers, then it's the company that needs to be taken to account, not adobe. the latter only create a tool/format (which can be made accessible), but the former is the one choosing to use it exclusively.
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  25. #100
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow. What an amazing load of ill-informed nonsense, on a respected forum like this! To take some random tosh:

    "there are better ways to educate people than to sue them" http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...83&postcount=2
    Indeed. The article says that they'd tried to educate Target, who had done nothing. The W3C's surprisingly simple guidelines, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines have been available since 1999. Groups like the Web Standards Project have been pumping out free articles for years. Sites like SitePoint likewise. But if people refuse to be educated into obeying the law, then legal sanctions are a last resort.

    Whether or not you agree with the law, in most countries in the industrialised world, it is illegal to refuse to do business with someone because of their skin colour, religion or disability. If you are in such a jurisdiction, and don't like it, you should move to another country.

    "the internet is not made for blind people" (http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...2&postcount=10). Of course it is. Or rather, the world wide web is - and that's what we're talking about here. Tim Berners-Lee wrote "The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect." (see http://www.w3.org/WAI/)

    "If they where blind then why would they be on the computer?" http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...1&postcount=16

    I know a blind woman who buys her groceries online (at Tesco.com) because it's easier than trying to shop in physical store, get taxis etc. I know blind people on news groups, forums, discussing art, politics, music - everything. You know, *participating* in every day life. But then you don't believe that a blind person has that right, I take it?

    "I can see how all people regardless of race, religion, age or disability have the right to essential services. But Target is not an essential service. It's a retail business. .... Are restaurants required by law to sell vegetarian dishes?" http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/show...2&postcount=75

    Vegetarianism is a choice, not a disability, for a start. So retail businesses can legitimately be discriminatory, is that what you're saying? Imagine you go to a restaurant or a cinema with a black friend, and you're told you can come in, but he can't because he's black. Do you find that acceptable? Imagine now you go to a cinema with a friend in a wheelchair. you can go in, but they refuse to sell her a ticket. Is that OK? So why should a business that operates over the Web be exempt from the same rules that govern its competitors in the physical world? Those of you who prattle on about the American free market miss the point: it is creating fair competition to require a level playing field. If a retail store must have access ramps, then its online competitors should have the trivial coding requirements that allow access to the websites.

    If you think that making a website accessible is too difficult, then you evidently are not a professional web developer, as you don't know your trade. If that sounds harsh, I make no apologies.

    It is *not* difficult to make an ecommerce site that has alt text, keyboard access and an association between product and price. It is simple. It is best practice, in the same way that you don't build a site using 1 Meg bitmap images is best practice.

    If you sell your services to a client (and thus are a professional, if only part-time or as a second job) then you put their business at legal risk if you do not build for accessibility. You can damage their customer's goodwill, their brand, search engine rankings, and lock out around 10% of potential customers.

    And that is something that a professional practitioner would not do. And you could equally be sued by your client, in the same way as if I hire a builder and he is so inept that he hasn't kept up with the new building regulations and so builds me something unsafe, I can sue him. It's not my job to understand all those regulations - I hire him on the understanding that he has a modicum of professional pride and a working knowledge of the issues and laws surrounding his industry.

    If you are like that builder, and can't be bothered to build sites properly, go and do something else. Become a politician and get the Disability Discrimination Act repealed, if the thought of cripples buying things online offends you so much. But don't whimper if you're too lazy, too arrogant or too complacent to learn how to do your job properly.
    Last edited by bruce lawson; Feb 12, 2006 at 07:29.


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
  •