SitePoint.com

samanime · Oct 3, 2007, 15:48

Some interesting news came to me through the WSG mail. Apparently, Target has had a class-action law suit filed against them for not being blind-accessible. Here is a link to the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/...get_blind_dc_4

I posted this here because I'd like to hear everyone's comments on the subject. I looked at their website, turned off Javascript and CSS, and browsed around for a bit. It wasn't exactly the greatest, but there wasn't anything noticeably wrong with it. I don't know much about screen readers yet, though I'm trying to learn, but from what I thought it basically just reads the text on the screen, so if the text is descriptive and accurate, I can't see how it would be inaccessible.

Maybe somebody could fill me in on what is inaccessible to the blind on that site, but I couldn't necessarily find anything too blaring.

Also, if this goes farther, does that mean that any website on the internet could be sued for not being blind accessible, or at least any commercial website. What could this mean for all of the web developers out there. If our sites are no more accessible than Target (which I personally couldn't find anything too wrong on their website after a quick look), then does that mean that we could be sued?

What would happen if the government starts setting web-standards, instead of groups like W3C?

This could become a big deal for us.

Ted S · Oct 3, 2007, 17:05

A few months ago when this was first filed a thread was started on the subject. It's fairly lengthy with a diverse range of responses but was ultimately closed.

You may want to read the content there in addition to whatever responses are posted to this thread.

http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346162

As far as my opinion, well, I think it's safe to say that regardless of what we think or want, at some point in the not so distant future large brands and major websites are going to be forced to comply with some level of accessibility. Many already do and many that don't will have to pay to make the necessary changes. The only question in my mind is what the degree of requirements are.

samanime · Oct 3, 2007, 17:42

Yes, that's one question I have. The other is who is going to have to comply. How big is big, and who is exempt from it. If they try to make this be the standard for all commercial businesses (including small businesses), many of their websites will cause extreme trouble.

While I do my best to follow W3C's standards on accessibility with all of my websites, there is still some iffiness left open for whether I met all of them or whether I met the right ones and what happens if I made some small mistake somewhere that doesn't comply. Does that become grounds to sue? How big of a mistake does it take?

Thanks for the thread. I search but couldn't find anything related to it recently.

brothercake · Oct 3, 2007, 18:11

Everyone has to comply; there are no caveats for being small, or even non-profit making.

But legal action is always a last resort. You wouldn't just get sued - it would take one or more actual users to have a genuine, show-stoppping problem, for them to contact you, and for you to be like "puh, i don't care about that", before it went to court.

That's what happened with Target - they tried to squirm out of their obligations, and that's why it's gone this far.

samanime · Oct 3, 2007, 18:51

The problem with that thought is, what happens to the small businesses that just create their website, or the beginner hobbyist that does a site for a family member that owns a small business?

There is going to have to be some kind of free, government-run organization that will be able to tell you if you are compliant or not, and if not, what changes need to be made. Personally, I would love to see an organization like that, but I don't think we'd get one, which will cause trouble, since you'd have no way to verify your compliant other than to pay one of the few, usually quite expensive, accessibility companies out there.

I'd personally love to see these regulations become stricter, but, there need to be better means of testing them if that becomes the case.

brothercake · Oct 4, 2007, 00:23

Well what about a person selling sandwiches and coffee in the park? Should they be exempt from health and hygiene legislation just because their operation is small and home-spun?

But that's not the point; the law is the last resort, not the first. You don't have to prove you're compliant, and you won't get sued for hypothetical problems. If you get a report from a user that the site is not accessible to them, then you can work with that person to try to rectify the problem. In the overwhelming majority of cases that's how it ends.

The law only exists to force organisations that willfully won't even try. If your intent is in the right place then you don't need to consider it in legal terms at all.

DaveWoods · Oct 4, 2007, 04:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by samanime

Personally, I would love to see an organization like that, but I don't think we'd get one, which will cause trouble, since you'd have no way to verify your compliant other than to pay one of the few, usually quite expensive, accessibility companies out there.

This isn't really true. Accessibility shouldn't be a specialised area, it should come as part of any website development and is something that all good web developers should be including within their site as it's not difficult to include a decent level of accessibility if it's considered from the start so there's really no excuse for new sites not to be accessible.

wii · Oct 4, 2007, 05:08

This can only happen in the US, they sue everyone for everything, that´s why the US has more laywers than anywhere else in the world.

DaveWoods · Oct 4, 2007, 05:43

I don't agree with that. Physical shops have to be accessible to disabled people whether that be by implementing ramps or lifts so why shouldn't online shops?

A business can't choose it's customers based on religion, sex or race and they certainly can't based on disability and the same should stand for online businesses.

If Target have been approached and asked to fix these issues then they deserve everything they get in my opinion.

Stormrider · Oct 4, 2007, 06:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by samanime

The problem with that thought is, what happens to the small businesses that just create their website, or the beginner hobbyist that does a site for a family member that owns a small business?

Then they need to build it correctly. If you are a hobbyist builder who decides to build an extension to your house on your own, it doesn't exempt you from all the safety standards you need to meet. If someone doesn't know how to create an accessible website, then they shouldn't try, and definitely shouldn't sell their services.

BlazeMiskulin · Oct 4, 2007, 06:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by brothercake

Well what about a person selling sandwiches and coffee in the park? Should they be exempt from health and hygiene legislation just because their operation is small and home-spun?

In many ways, they are exempt from various rules which apply to full restaurants. Just like farms are exempt from many labor laws, local fishing guides are exempt from laws that apply to commercial fishing vessels, and the kid who mows your lawn is exempt from laws which govern landscaping companies.

It should also be noted that the legislation governing accessibility (the Americans with Disabilities Act--ADA) specifies that "reasonable accomodation" must be made. It does not say that all things must be 100% accessible to 100% of the population.

Now, I think that Target is stupid if they were presented with an issue and actively avoided fixing it, but they have the reason and resources to make the change--something which they could milk for some really great PR. Little Billy's Lawn Mowing Service may not have the resources to come into full compliance; nor a compelling reason to do so. It is unreasonable (and possibly punitive) to expect the kid making $20/wk to be held to the same standards as Scotts Miracle-Gro.

JackP · Oct 4, 2007, 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlazeMiskulin

It is unreasonable (and possibly punitive) to expect the kid making $20/wk to be held to the same standards as Scotts Miracle-Gro.

That's the thing I like about the UK's Disability Discrimination Act: for something to end up in court, the defendant would have had to have had the opportunity to make reasonable adjustments to their site and not to have done so.

What would be deemed reasonable would - quite reasonably - vary according to the size, resources etc of the organisation in question.

The New Guy · Oct 4, 2007, 07:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by csswiz

I don't agree with that. Physical shops have to be accessible to disabled people whether that be by implementing ramps or lifts so why shouldn't online shops?

A business can't choose it's customers based on religion, sex or race and they certainly can't based on disability and the same should stand for online businesses.

If Target have been approached and asked to fix these issues then they deserve everything they get in my opinion.

Bad analogy and I think this sets a terrible trend. In terms of accessibility a store uses it to get you to the product. However, online the site is the product. The browser and the OS are the transportation to get you there. They should be accessible. Not that sites shouldn't be, but having a legal obligation to have to will open up a can of worms.

If you think in terms of products, there are many items which are inaccessible. Since, websites can be both stores and web services you can't think of them as just store fronts. They are self contained products. With requirements, such as age, and terms of use like many other products.

chrisOBrien · Oct 4, 2007, 08:03

what about tdd phones? are all businesses required to have them? do we need to have cashiers and bank tellers who know how to use sign language? Why then can't a deaf person sue any radio station or anyone who advertises on radio for discrimation?

Personally this type of lawsuit is frivalsous(sp) and it appaules me. I can understand the need/desire to reach as many potential customers as possible by creating and complying to accessability standards but law suits are crazy. What will happen is businesses will no longer have a web presence and e-commerce sights due to the liability of these types of lawsuits. I know I would just pull my site down once the flood gate opens to allow this crap to continue.

spoondevil · Oct 4, 2007, 08:05

I think it sucks, tbh. If Target want to lose out on a customer base, let them. There are plemnty of website I can't get onto because I won't use IE.

I can't get onto certain parts of the O2 website or how about Windows Update, no chance.

Does that mean I could effectively sue MS?!? No, it just means I need to use another browser to view their site or lump it.

What about pure flash based sites or flash games.

What about YouTube for the visually impaired - should all YouTube video clips have subtitles?

chrisOBrien · Oct 4, 2007, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by csswiz

I don't agree with that. Physical shops have to be accessible to disabled people whether that be by implementing ramps or lifts so why shouldn't online shops?

A business can't choose it's customers based on religion, sex or race and they certainly can't based on disability and the same should stand for online businesses.

If Target have been approached and asked to fix these issues then they deserve everything they get in my opinion.

where is the alternate radio for hearing impaired? what about glasses for people who have lost their ears? can i sue maui jim because he discrimanates against earless people? what about my tv? it came with a remote and push buttons but i lost both my hands and all i have are stubs. they have just discrimanated against me and now i want to sue them. I am also a little person and all restaraunts discriminate because their tables and chairs are designed for regular people and i have a hard time sitting at a table and eating the food they sell!!! Man I am going to be rich. All kinds of discrimination lawsuits!!

In mho if we as web designers/developers advocate these lawsuits weare actually shooting ourselves in the foot. It will cause reason for businesses to think twice before they have a web site posted and maintained. Usually with brick and mortor stores some of the liability for accidents and accessibility is the responsibility of the landowner so the business would not be responsible. Also there is, i'm sure, some type of insurance policy that can cover such damages. do we need to carry cyber insurance next? give me a break!

fashola · Oct 4, 2007, 08:12

I think government and public bodies should take the lead in this area, followed by the big corporate groups and finally by small companies...

dvduval · Oct 4, 2007, 08:14

How would one come to know if their site was not accessible? Is it the responsibility of the owner to check for this on a constant basis?

Stormrider · Oct 4, 2007, 08:22

Or when they first create the site, or new guidelines come out, yes. It isn't as though the guidelines are constantly changing. Think of the builder analogy again: It is his responsibility to make sure he meets his relevant standards and guidelines.

Stormrider · Oct 4, 2007, 08:26

Quote: