Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
No but you DO have an escalator at your local shopping mall because not everyone finds the climb up the stairs easy. Or should we remove the escalators and elevators from shopping malls too because they CHOSE to go to that shopping mall didn't they? Can you please use logic and sense? On Oct 3 2007, at 22:50, Chris Wilson wrote: Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Well that's a matter of opinion (preferably a matter of legal opinion). The thing is, it really should be, but right now, there aren't many laws written that protect much of what occurs online (read as: none). Sometimes I am glad thats the case however. I bet everyone around here has a website thats still alive and kicking on the Net filled with nested layout tables and nonsemantic HTML. What if all of a sudden, you have to fix those evil mistakes because a law is introduced that says you have to? And if you don't, you go to jail? But then again, who is accountable when that building you built collapses in a pile of rubble solely because you forgot a few important bricks? As time goes by, websites will probably become so intrinsically linked to our existence that it would be catastrophic to be without access to the services or information they provide. When that day comes, and God help us, we will expect and demand access for everyone. Fair nuff. For now though, I get by when the Internet Banking servers are down and I fire up my copy of Parallels and Windows XP to run a Windows application to lodge my Tax return. Just as I believe it's entirely possible blind people will surf to another website because this one is crap. It's only a mouse click after all - if they can use a mouse that is, maybe its some other assistive technology. Speaking of Microsoft, AHHH another big company to bash, does anyone else find it strange that no one has sued them for the countless hours lost to the incompatibilities of IE? I have a few years owing by reckoning... Karl P.s A braille issue of Playboy - is it perverted that I think this is a cool idea??! You know this exists right? http://www.banterist.com/archivefiles/000305.html [link is safe for work] I was hoping for a something a bit more graphic... Hehe. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Steve Green wrote: I suspect that this lawsuit was premature The WCAG were published 8 years ago. How long should we wait? I don't know when Section 508 came into law but the UK's DDA was passed in 1995. Seems like long enough to me. 508 was 1998. WCAG was 1999 Target came online in 1997? IE is just now becoming compliant. Target is just now becoming usable in FF. How long should we wait? You're waiting? I thought that WCAG was already coming into it's own. It maps very closely to 508. This group isn't waiting All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind, Maurer said. My only issue is the way they are going about it. They are suing Target. Why didn't they sue a small set of companies? Or Sears and Target and JoAnns? They are trying to set precedent in the law. I don't think that's the right strategy at this point. The web isn't that old and in the 10+ years I've been online technology is changing so fast somethings haven't caught up or kept up. I think Accessibility is an idea that would have become standard without legal strong arming. I think that because it makes good business sense as more users with disabilities can use/afford technologies to let them experience the web. Anyway, the wheels are rolling. We'll see. But if this judge's decision becomes du jour... It won't. Courts will assess what it is reasonable to expect a company to do, given the resources at their disposal. They will also take into account the number of people affected, which is why Target should be expected to make a much greater effort than a corner store. Courts will use previous judgements as guidance but will always consider the specifics of the case in front of them. Hehehe...okay. If you say so. Personally, I'm skeptical. But I'll hold out hope that at best they wont screw up too much. judges making half informed or emotionally skewed decisions No, you're confusing them with politicians. I have read the transcripts of many of the proceedings to date (not just the press coverage) and the judges seem to have a pretty good handle on it. There will be expert testimony from both sides, and it won't be difficult to tell who's talking out their backside. I'm not confusing the two. Politicians lie. Judges are little dictators and don't need to lie ;-). FWIW: I have not read the transcripts. At this point though, all this judge has done is declare the class and moved the suit along. We'll see if the class wins. In fact there won't be much argument about whether the website is accessible to blind people or not. It isn't. The argument is primarily whether the law actually applies to the website, and you don't need to know anything about accessibility to make that judgement. Then based on what I know I'd say no the law does not apply to a website. :-D. I think a law applied to a building where a person may need to go (use the facilities/ get out of the rain/ what ever) and become trapped, disoriented, injured etc. does not necessarily *need* to apply to a website. If you can not use Target's site, you could chose another at the click of a mouse. Literally at the speed of light :-D. It would be scary enough if Target wins this suit because a judge decides based on that logic. It could happen. And so I come back to my original argument. I think that this lawsuit was a bad idea and premature. It could hurt as easily as help for many reasons. But well see. I'll definitely be watching this and asking questions! Thanks to whomever posted the blurb to the list! Cheers Chere -- // Genesis One And One Studios *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites that people actually need and use. fair nuff. you gonna sue me? On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote: If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Russ, time to step in the ring perhaps? On 10/4/07, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites that people actually need and use. fair nuff. you gonna sue me? On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote: If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Careful... You vill also go on ze list! On Thu, October 4, 2007 7:28 am, Joe Ortenzi wrote: yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites that people actually need and use. fair nuff. you gonna sue me? On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote: If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On 4 Oct 2007, at 04:33, Jim Davies wrote: Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government entity should be telling a private business what it must do WHAT? with that one line you have just summarised all that is strange about America. Private business is above the law? They can do whatever they like? so it's okay if a private business murders people? what about paying taxes? the government tells them to do that, are you saying that a private business can decide not to pay tax? sheesh. whatever country we live in, we're all on the same planet and laws are generally made by the people for the people to protect the people... I just woke up to an inbox full of misguided bigotry and confused logic that makes me wonder why I'm on this list. ;( *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
There's one thing nobody has mentioned so far, which is Michelle Malkin is what I personally would call an extreme right-winger. She's a regular on Fox News, and she's been compared to Anne Coulter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin I find the idea that we'll drop her a polite, well-meaning email and she'll come around to our way of thinking rather unlikely. Our efforts would be better directed elsewhere. == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government entity should be telling a private business what it must do WHAT? with that one line you have just summarised all that is strange about America. Private business is above the law? They can do whatever they like? so it's okay if a private business murders people? what about paying taxes? the government tells them to do that, are you saying that a private business can decide not to pay tax? I think these were mentioned in the part of the post you did not include in your quote... Interesting quoting tactics. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
even if making their site accessible to the blind costs target 0 dollars and 0 work, even if they need to just flip a button and bang - their site is accessible, it doesn't mean the law should force them to do it. what i really don't understand is why did the blind people sued target..if target doesn't want to make their site accessible it's their right to do it. there is no reason for the government to force its will on a private company. you can and you should make the stores accessible to everyone, but telling the stores how to make their sites is like telling them what services should the staff give to the people who come in. it's like Andreas said, the company is allowed to choose what service it wants to give to the public. if a company doesn't want to make a site, they are allowed to. but if they make a site, it doesn't mean they have to make it available to everyone. if they choose to make a Spanish site so that they won't have to have people who speak spanish in the shop, but still be able to sell to the Hispanic community, is it discrimination against english-speakers? On 10/4/07, Karl Lurman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russ, time to step in the ring perhaps? On 10/4/07, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites that people actually need and use. fair nuff. you gonna sue me? On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote: If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On 4 Oct 2007, at 08:33, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government entity should be telling a private business what it must do WHAT? with that one line you have just summarised all that is strange about America. Private business is above the law? They can do whatever they like? so it's okay if a private business murders people? what about paying taxes? the government tells them to do that, are you saying that a private business can decide not to pay tax? I think these were mentioned in the part of the post you did not include in your quote... Interesting quoting tactics. well, no, they weren't specifically mentioned. what was said was my quote above and this (which you might be referring to): Bottom line is the government has no business sticking its nose in a private business as long as health and safety issues are not the issue. It doesn't even need to know how much money a business makes except we are forced to report it for our out of control IRS requirements. to which I strongly disagree, but that's not the point, and I'm not sure why you tackled me on it, when the issue is about if an anti discrimination law should be enforced - I think it should, and Jim Davies disagrees, that's all I'm saying - what are you saying? ;) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Quoting Or Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: First things first. I am a complete and total grammar snob; I think it is because I see myself as a designer. Punctuation is important, as is spacing and capitalisation. They do not hinder you, contrary, they promote your argument, as it makes you seem educated and reasoned. This entire thread seems to have lost all proper respect for our poor punctuation. It's disgraceful. Secondly, I agree with Tony. We create a government to create a social fabric we are happy with. Are we happy with children being exploited, for example, are we happy with children under the age of six spending all day in a mine? No? Then we legislate against it, and all have to abide by it. That is point of a government. Accessibility is about recognising everyone's difference. We all have differing capabilities and needs. Accessibility is ensuring a giving environment where everyone is welcome, regardless of those needs. So we legislate accessibility to promote a mannerly interaction with other members of our community. it doesn't mean the law should force them to do it. What should the law force them to do? How about treating their workers carefully? Protecting their safety? What about race? Is it OK that some businesses will supply goods and services to some races, but not to others? What about gender? Is it OK to discriminate based on gender? If you say no to these ideas, why say discrimination based on ability is OK? Yes, there should be moral and legal compulsion, on all, to do the correct thing. What sort of community do we want to live in? As far as I was aware, this is a web standards list, and accessibility is but one of the many standards. Those who are pro-standards are also pro-accessibility. Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Alas, it's the American way: Human rights and the constitution are vitally important (US only)- except when I'm turning a quick buck. On Thu, October 4, 2007 9:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Or Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: First things first. I am a complete and total grammar snob; I think it is because I see myself as a designer. Punctuation is important, as is spacing and capitalisation. They do not hinder you, contrary, they promote your argument, as it makes you seem educated and reasoned. This entire thread seems to have lost all proper respect for our poor punctuation. It's disgraceful. Secondly, I agree with Tony. We create a government to create a social fabric we are happy with. Are we happy with children being exploited, for example, are we happy with children under the age of six spending all day in a mine? No? Then we legislate against it, and all have to abide by it. That is point of a government. Accessibility is about recognising everyone's difference. We all have differing capabilities and needs. Accessibility is ensuring a giving environment where everyone is welcome, regardless of those needs. So we legislate accessibility to promote a mannerly interaction with other members of our community. it doesn't mean the law should force them to do it. What should the law force them to do? How about treating their workers carefully? Protecting their safety? What about race? Is it OK that some businesses will supply goods and services to some races, but not to others? What about gender? Is it OK to discriminate based on gender? If you say no to these ideas, why say discrimination based on ability is OK? Yes, there should be moral and legal compulsion, on all, to do the correct thing. What sort of community do we want to live in? As far as I was aware, this is a web standards list, and accessibility is but one of the many standards. Those who are pro-standards are also pro-accessibility. Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Matthew Cruickshank wrote: Karl Lurman wrote: P.s A braille issue of Playboy - is it perverted that I think this is a cool idea??! You know this exists right? http://www.banterist.com/archivefiles/000305.html [link is safe for work] I'm frightened you knew that, or even thought to google it... mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I thought legislature and regulation are constitutionally separate in the US? On Oct 04, 2007, at 06:01, Michael MD wrote: Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government entity should be telling a private business what it must do and that includes telling a business it must provide health coverage, or spend a certain percentage on it and what the covereage must include. If that business accepts government monies, then the ball game changes. Of course the private businesses should do some things, accessible websites may be one of them but it is not the governments job to force it. The Target website is probably a case of ignorance in management there I think the best response to ignorance is education ... not lawsuits... (yes it is probably different if there is government funding involved - but even then I think education should be attempted first and perhaps accessability could be made part of the conditions for getting the funding) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
John Horner wrote: There's one thing nobody has mentioned so far, which is Michelle Malkin is what I personally would call an extreme right-winger. She's a regular on Fox News, and she's been compared to Anne Coulter. Yes I did, at 10:47am. Keep up ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin I find the idea that we'll drop her a polite, well-meaning email and she'll come around to our way of thinking rather unlikely. Our efforts would be better directed elsewhere. Y'ain't wrong about that! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
RalphNader legislatively proved that you cannot budget the risks involved in the 70's with the famous Ford Pinto debacle. they forgot to include the bad press or legal challenge when ignoring the rights of the community. On Oct 04, 2007, at 06:24, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote: I really have to wonder just how ignorant Target really is, or was the decision to implement or act based on a calculated risk. I believe many larger corporations will make some decisions based on the probability of the plan backfiring (or them getting caught) versus the plan's profitability. An example could be a manufacturer faced with a flaw found in their production. They might weight the risks, even calculate settlement amounts in advance, then look at recall costs... ultimately taking the low road. Am I wary of large corporations? Yes, and government too. I founded a corporation 15 years ago, a small one, but I have had some exposure to some things that were, well, less than cool I'll say. Target sort of proved they are in the latter category because they were informed of the problems and the specifics of how to address them, yet they chose not to act. Hindsight may tell them that this was foolish, or maybe they're a really stubborn company. But there may be another possibility. Who knows, maybe they are members of some business club/group/union whose members begged them to fight it so a precedent wouldn't be set and thus they wouldn't have to act themselves. Just speculation, right? @Steve Olive: Some people have mentioned converting books into Braille and audio formats as too difficult. This is wrong and there are specific exemptions in copyright legislation that permit this, without the publishers' express permission. I was the person stating that copies in Braille are made for copyrighted books in the US (for free, so easy), with the copyright holders permission. Two things you mentioned specifically prompted me to respond: 1) Audio formats. This is true. It's been a couple of years since I've filled out an application but if I recall seeing Braille and Phonographs Records (if I recall the terminology). Thanks for reminding me of this. 2) Without the publishers' express permission I recall seeing a checkbox asking me if it was okay that copies in the above mentioned formats be made. Like I said, it's been a couple of years... is it an automatic conversion that's done with all applicable works nowadays? Thanks. Again, sorry to all if this email strays off topic too much. Respectfully, Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Bless you Kat for a very intelligent and reasoned argument. On Oct 04, 2007, at 09:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Or Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: First things first. I am a complete and total grammar snob; I think it is because I see myself as a designer. Punctuation is important, as is spacing and capitalisation. They do not hinder you, contrary, they promote your argument, as it makes you seem educated and reasoned. This entire thread seems to have lost all proper respect for our poor punctuation. It's disgraceful. Secondly, I agree with Tony. We create a government to create a social fabric we are happy with. Are we happy with children being exploited, for example, are we happy with children under the age of six spending all day in a mine? No? Then we legislate against it, and all have to abide by it. That is point of a government. Accessibility is about recognising everyone's difference. We all have differing capabilities and needs. Accessibility is ensuring a giving environment where everyone is welcome, regardless of those needs. So we legislate accessibility to promote a mannerly interaction with other members of our community. it doesn't mean the law should force them to do it. What should the law force them to do? How about treating their workers carefully? Protecting their safety? What about race? Is it OK that some businesses will supply goods and services to some races, but not to others? What about gender? Is it OK to discriminate based on gender? If you say no to these ideas, why say discrimination based on ability is OK? Yes, there should be moral and legal compulsion, on all, to do the correct thing. What sort of community do we want to live in? As far as I was aware, this is a web standards list, and accessibility is but one of the many standards. Those who are pro- standards are also pro-accessibility. Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Mike Brown wrote: [Mike - see, the problem is this guy is only a part-time web developer. If he was full-time, he'd totally have time and be able to solve the verbalise the text into every spoken language problem.] The funny thing for me was his later comment - someone else mentioned JAWS, he obviously went away and did some 'research', and from that concluded that JAWS required a website built with Active Directory (the Microsoft network management system) instead of standard web technologies. But the frightening part about it was that everyone seemed to take him seriously and value his 'expertise'. Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I agree, reading her blog she seems to be a knee-jerk reactionary Republican who wants government support when they get shafted and government to lay off when others accuse them of shafting. Someone earlier said she was intelligent - I find little evidence of this. On Oct 04, 2007, at 08:13, John Horner wrote: There's one thing nobody has mentioned so far, which is Michelle Malkin is what I personally would call an extreme right-winger. She's a regular on Fox News, and she's been compared to Anne Coulter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin I find the idea that we'll drop her a polite, well-meaning email and she'll come around to our way of thinking rather unlikely. Our efforts would be better directed elsewhere. == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Two mistakes. As already mentioned, they do, in legislation, need to make the site accessible or at least show the attempt to, NOT to say we don't want to so we won't. If they bar people who speak Spanish from the shop they are also being discriminatory, both to the Spanish they are barring simply because they speak Spanish and to the users of the site because there is not a version non-Spanish speakers can use. YOu keep using examples to support your case that are faulty because they ARE legislated ()rightly) against. Barring Spanish-speakers from a shop is the same as banning someone from the shop with a whites only sign. I am amazed you can't see this! On Oct 04, 2007, at 08:59, Or Golan wrote: even if making their site accessible to the blind costs target 0 dollars and 0 work, even if they need to just flip a button and bang - their site is accessible, it doesn't mean the law should force them to do it. what i really don't understand is why did the blind people sued target..if target doesn't want to make their site accessible it's their right to do it. there is no reason for the government to force its will on a private company. you can and you should make the stores accessible to everyone, but telling the stores how to make their sites is like telling them what services should the staff give to the people who come in. it's like Andreas said, the company is allowed to choose what service it wants to give to the public. if a company doesn't want to make a site, they are allowed to. but if they make a site, it doesn't mean they have to make it available to everyone. if they choose to make a Spanish site so that they won't have to have people who speak spanish in the shop, but still be able to sell to the Hispanic community, is it discrimination against english-speakers? On 10/4/07, Karl Lurman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russ, time to step in the ring perhaps? On 10/4/07, Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites that people actually need and use. fair nuff. you gonna sue me? On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote: If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
*SIGH* I know, that JAWS Activex/AD statement floored me, it really did How did he get on this list? Might be a newb like me but I though he'd know better than that. This is why it is taking me ages to recruit a LAMP developer who know who webstandards.org are and what they are for! Personally I am seriously entertained by this discussion. There iss quite a lot of old skool versus new school in this debate, alongside the usual political big/small government issue. Good to se the new school is in the majority though. But as my Venezuelan brother-in-law says, we're preaching to the convertible [sic:converted] which is not only poetic but charming! Anyone want to conclude the thread or is this one going to fly forever? Joe On Oct 04, 2007, at 11:21, Rob Crowther wrote: Mike Brown wrote: [Mike - see, the problem is this guy is only a part-time web developer. If he was full-time, he'd totally have time and be able to solve the verbalise the text into every spoken language problem.] The funny thing for me was his later comment - someone else mentioned JAWS, he obviously went away and did some 'research', and from that concluded that JAWS required a website built with Active Directory (the Microsoft network management system) instead of standard web technologies. But the frightening part about it was that everyone seemed to take him seriously and value his 'expertise'. Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
oops! Target are not offering a website to help clients. You can bet your last penny they have a website to make it easier to reach more customers and convince them to spend their money with Traget. Period! There is nothing in Target's behaviour that says they want to make life easier for their customers. If ther DID they would make it accessible! sheesh! They were asked to fix a tiny thing that would be so easy to fix it is laughable. They said we don't want to make the site easier to use or accessible by a vociferous and disadvantaged group of keen shoppers, willing to politely show how it can be done. Imagine if target said let's improve the site, make a big deal about it and show how we lead the pack in an inclusive society ... yeah I though it was funny too! Target could have been the shop somewhere else leader, if it wanted to... Your analogy, again, fails. we are not saying make the site accessible to the blind but painful for the sighted. The opposite in fact. Making the site accessible ADDS to the experience, it does not remove pleasure from one group to give it to the other - EVERYONE benefits. A better analogy would be to supply everyone in the gym with a socket in all the machines so they can bring their own headphones and set their own volumes, like mine does. WIN-WIN. On Oct 04, 2007, at 01:40, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: What Target offer is an additional service to their clients. They don’t have to offer a website, they just do it to make it easier for their customers (and of course to sell more products). If they are being sued for having an inaccessible website, they might as well turn around and take the site down. That doesn’t help anybody. It’s like suing your local gym for not turning on the volume of the TVs they’ve got hanging of their walls. They could do it, it’s easy to do, it would make a small group of people happy, but they chose not to. That’s the right of every private company: they can choose what services they offer and they can choose in what format those services come. If you do not like it, then you go and shop somewhere else. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Green Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 8:11 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard I think you'll find the people of Tibet didn't build Mount Everest and weren't even able to influence its design. Target chose to design their site the way they did, and a professional designer would have known that they were excluding some people from using the website. In the face of such wilful or ignorant behaviour I believe it is necessary to legislate. Sure it's inconvenient to have to worry about people with disabilities and incur additional costs to support them, but it's a mark of a civilised country that we do. At least where I live. Steve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson Sent: 03 October 2007 22:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** __ NOD32 2570 (20071003) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Since I started it, I'll ask that we conclude the thread. Thanks to everyone for your input. The discussion was excellent and I now have some good ammo to use when debating this issue with others. I also see that the discussion has spread to other sites. Thanks again! Anyone want to conclude the thread or is this one going to fly forever? Joe *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Sorry I have to disagree some of these points. Comments among your text On Oct 04, 2007, at 01:56, Steve Green wrote: can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility costs money comes from? It certainly can do depending on the content of your site and the target audience. I would concede that it probably doesn't cost more to produce a standards-compliant static website (i.e. has semantic structure and is valid HTML and CSS) but that is only the first step in making a website accessible. ...but a very big one IMHO. We've discussed many examples here, and I encounter them every day in our work. Obvious ones are the provision of captions, transcripts and audio descriptions for multimedia; that does not come cheap. ... but do provide value! And you can easily separate crucial information, like a user's manual, from advertising, our widgets are 20% better than theirs! and prioritise the crucial translations (but you KNOW they will prioritise the non-crucial at times don't you ;-)) It is not trivial to accommodate text resizing and screen widths ranging from less than 800px wide to upwards of 1600px while maintaining an acceptable layout. Especially so if someone else told you what the layout has to be. A fixed layout solves this and this is not an accessibility issue exactly, more a design and usability one. Converting artwork into accessible code takes more time than slicing and dicing a PhotoShop image. Making interactive content accessible (such as discovery-based e-learning applications) can be seriously challenging. Yes, but the experience makes the site much better, so it has a return on the investment. And then there's the cost of maintaining the accessibility of a site on an ongoing basis when most CMSs don't enforce the creation of accessible content. Big sites might have many dozens of content authors, none of whom gives a monkeys about accessibility so you need periodic or ongoing testing and repair to prevent the accessibility from degrading. we build our own cms's -and cms's can also be hacked if they truly are template based. Separation of structure from content os one of the cornerstones so you should not be choosing CMS's that won't let you do this. So yes, it often does cost more. These costs may well be offset to some extent by savings and other kinds of benefits but we need to be able to quantify this before we can make sweeping statements that it doesn't cost I remember reading some people putting a cost value on this but forget where I read it. You can bet Target have a very clear understanding of the value of accessible design right now. any more. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Chamberlain Sent: 04 October 2007 00:18 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard I must be having a stupid attack as I can't find anywhere on the site where I can register and then comment. As for the left / right - Accessibility/ Freedom agrument (it doesn't deserve to be called a debate) it leaves me with the feeling that I would not wish to be trapped in a lift (elevator) or even a medium sized country with most of these people. All that said; can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility costs money comes from? Agreed, updating an existing site may cost money, however creating a clean semantic and accessibile site can be done at the same price as a nasty old site and if we all take the semantic thing to heart who knows they should be less expensive than todays sites. The final puzzle is quite why Target are happy to spend more than they should simply to discriminate against a significant proportion of their potential market. Seems plain dumb to me. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Please compare like with like. Target and your local grocery store are not a valid comparison. target were approached, had the issue politely explained, were shown suggestions as to how it could be fixed, were given both financial and legislative reasons to do so and decided to say no. I don' wwanna stop usin' slaves coz they's cheaper to manage than cattle and they work in my financial favour. My farm, my business, my decision, so get off my land! So take your northern ways back to New York with ya! ...h. The legislature is supposed to be a check on business poractices for the benefit of the populace in general. On Oct 04, 2007, at 02:00, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Breton Slivka Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 10:34 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Target is a business, and they ain't in the business of making art. We are talking about a business that, despite one of the comments on that blog, HAS made a concious decision to exclude a portion of the populace from using their website. I know this because I've seen the reasoning before. Who cares about blind people? they're a small part of the population anyway. Let's just make the whole thing flash. Yes, they are a business. They are trying to make money. Like all of us. All of their decisions were conscious and based on the premise to make money: use flash for marketing purposes. Save money by getting in a crappy web development company. Save money by not targeting a select group of people. So what? Are you blaming them for running a business? We all have to make these kind of decisions: how do we save money, who are the customer groups we are trying to address... If you don't make those decisions you are a crappy business person and your business won't exist for very long. Whether their decisions were right or wrong in our eyes is not the point. They have got the right to make those decisions because they are a private company. Would anybody go and sue the local grocery store for having an inaccessible website? No. Because nobody would expect them to spend much time or money or effort into building a website that works. So where do you draw the line? If a company earns millions of dollars then they should suddenly have to be liable for making their websites accessible? But if the company only earns a few thousands of dollars then it's all fine? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard [long]
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: I think these were mentioned in the part of the post you did not include in your quote... Interesting quoting tactics. Oh, please! Guilt by assertion? Jim Davies made no mention of taxes in his post. What he did say was: Of course the private businesses should do some things which you might construe to mean pay taxes, except that paying taxes is compulsory - if you don't then you are breaking the law. This use of 'should' is somewhat less than perfect. 'Must' would be better, if you are to remain a solid citizen or corporate entity. Jim Davies followed this with: accessible websites may be one of them but it is not the governments job to force it. And, actually that's what this whole thing is about - finding out whether or not Target has broken the law. If they have, the legal system _is_ required to enforce it. What has happened so far is that: * Bruce Sexton, with the help of the National Federation of the Blind, has brought a suit against Target, claiming they are violating the Americans With Disabilities Act, and two California statutes - the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. * Target claim that a) they haven't broken those laws and b) they have changed their site since the suit was issued and so they asked for summary judgment and dismissal of the case. The judge has denied their plea for summary judgment. (For the non-legal out there, summary judgment is usually sought when a party claims that there are no grounds for a suit to proceed but the plaintiff won't withdraw it, or when there is no opposition to a claim and everybody wants to avoid the cost of a pointless trial - yes, I know that is a simplistic explanation) * The judge further granted the plaintiff's motion to certify a nationwide class under the ADA for injunctive relief - that means that others with similar claims against Target are joined to this dispute and these proceedings and will share equally in any damages that the court may award. The district court must find that the claims of the class members contain questions of law or fact in common before the lawsuit can proceed as a class action. The judge has _not_ ruled on the case, as to whether or not Target is in breach of those statutes. She has ruled that there is a case to answer and, as I understand it, the certification of the class action means she thinks it is wide ranging and needs to be dealt with in one hit, rather than claim by claim which could drag on for years. I think, therefore, that the NFB press release is a little premature. It's a sign that the courts are going to take the matter seriously but it's hardly the momentous victory Maurer seems to be claiming. To quote from the judge's order: Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for class certification on February 1, 2007. On March 8, 2007 defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff Sexton has not suffered a cognizable injury under the ADA. The court held an initial hearing on these matters on April 12, 2007. At the hearing, the court requested supplemental briefing on the reach of the relevant state statutes before ruling on the class certification motion as it related to the California subclass. Following the hearing, the court issued an order on the motion for class certification on April 25, 2007. In its order, the court narrowed the proposed class definition for the nationwide class to include the nexus requirement from its earlier order. Accordingly, the nationwide class consists of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Target.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores. Subsequently, the parties submitted supplemental briefing on whether the DPA and the Unruh Act apply to websites. Plaintiffs also submitted supplemental declarations of class members in accordance with the court's April 25, 2007 order. Both parties submitted additional briefing on the class certification issues. We clear on that? The plaintiffs (Sexton and the NFB) asked the judge in February to certify the case as a class action, which enables them to bring in lots more blind people to give testimony to the jury, whether they know Sexton or not. She, rightly IMHO, asked for more information from both sides and then spent 8 months considering it. By my reading of the US legal system, that's pretty swift work, but it's hardly the knee-jerk activism that Malkin's commentators were bemoaning. However I am neither a lawyer nor an American (IANALOAA - catchy, no?) so I stand to be corrected by someone who is both. On the matter summary judgment, the judge says: Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
You are right, there is no reason in the world not to make your site accessible. It's easy and it is cheap, and it makes your site better. The question is, why should we force anyone to do it? No one makes his site non-accessible out of discriminating motives. They do it because they are either lazy or ignorant. Ignoring a request to fix the site is still not discrimination, it is simply not caring. Target's managers are dumb, but they didn't do anything illegal. On 10/4/07, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please compare like with like. Target and your local grocery store are not a valid comparison. target were approached, had the issue politely explained, were shown suggestions as to how it could be fixed, were given both financial and legislative reasons to do so and decided to say no. I don' wwanna stop usin' slaves coz they's cheaper to manage than cattle and they work in my financial favour. My farm, my business, my decision, so get off my land! So take your northern ways back to New York with ya! ...h. The legislature is supposed to be a check on business poractices for the benefit of the populace in general. On Oct 04, 2007, at 02:00, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Breton Slivka Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 10:34 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Target is a business, and they ain't in the business of making art. We are talking about a business that, despite one of the comments on that blog, HAS made a concious decision to exclude a portion of the populace from using their website. I know this because I've seen the reasoning before. Who cares about blind people? they're a small part of the population anyway. Let's just make the whole thing flash. Yes, they are a business. They are trying to make money. Like all of us. All of their decisions were conscious and based on the premise to make money: use flash for marketing purposes. Save money by getting in a crappy web development company. Save money by not targeting a select group of people. So what? Are you blaming them for running a business? We all have to make these kind of decisions: how do we save money, who are the customer groups we are trying to address... If you don't make those decisions you are a crappy business person and your business won't exist for very long. Whether their decisions were right or wrong in our eyes is not the point. They have got the right to make those decisions because they are a private company. Would anybody go and sue the local grocery store for having an inaccessible website? No. Because nobody would expect them to spend much time or money or effort into building a website that works. So where do you draw the line? If a company earns millions of dollars then they should suddenly have to be liable for making their websites accessible? But if the company only earns a few thousands of dollars then it's all fine? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
This was a warning of others on WSG - not a threat by me. To get on the list you have to respond to a post by Chris Wilson in an intelligent reasoned way. He will then make some bah-hoo comment about your Website (because he can't defend himself by intelligent reasoning). This will then be seized upon by the Keeper of the List, Felix Miata (He who can do no wrong), and you will be put on his little list on his Website. Also, if your wondering about Chris Wilson and his support of accessibility see 26bits.com On Thu, October 4, 2007 11:11 am, Joseph Ortenzi wrote: there is a world of difference between a site I would love to redo when I have the time that was only meant as a portfolio site and one providing services to a very large population. But ultimately, I confess to having a bad site and am prepared to face the gauntlet of complaints. I am NOT saying it is my site and if you don't like it, lump it. BIG difference, n'est-ce-pas? SO putz me on zee leest, comrade! On Oct 04, 2007, at 07:59, Stuart Foulstone wrote: Careful... You vill also go on ze list! On Thu, October 4, 2007 7:28 am, Joe Ortenzi wrote: yes for an old site I no longer need. but been too busy fixing sites that people actually need and use. fair nuff. you gonna sue me? On Oct 3 2007, at 23:33, Chris Wilson wrote: If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
If you're doing business in a country (as in your company has offices and/or stores in that country), that country's legislation applies. P From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson Sent: 03 October 2007 23:58 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Those are all well and good, but utterly useless in a global marketplace. Should I be under your countries guidelines? Mine? What if I'm international? All of them? What if country As guidelines are incompatible with country Bs... Or should legislation hinge on guidelines proposed, created, and managed by a non government body (WSG)? You are all so quick to support legislation, but do you have any concept of how that would change the web, a concept not just of the accesability impact but the real impact? On 10/3/07, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Yours? Mine? There are clearly defined ideas of accessibility for most countries - such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Or Section 508 in the case of America: http://www.section508.gov/ In Australia, for example, web accessibility hinges on the Disability Act of 1992 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/ And is backed up by HEREOC's World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html#s3_3 In June 2000, the Online Council, representing the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments, agreed that the Worldwide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 will be the common best practice standard for all Australian government websites. All this will change soon when WCAG2 hits the stands :) Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Jermayn Parker 1992 that is 15 years ago :shock: surely its time for a new updated version that includes up to date web version of rules etc. If you want businesses and websites to follow these standards they need to be update Because, you know...they've simply been ignoring 15 year old guidelines because they felt they didn't apply to them anymore... They're probably avidly reviewing the current final stages of WCAG 2.0 and simply biding their time until it becomes an official W3C recommendation. Oh, even if they did, though, the issue of ALT attributes hasn't changed in the new version either...maybe they're holding out for 3.0? P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor Enterprise Development University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Julie Romanowski Please visit Michelle Malkin's site and post your comments - http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/03/blind-shoppers-get-green- light-to-s ue-target-over-website/. It's reassuring to see the exact same idiotic views still being bandied around, most of them along the the web is visual and what next? blind people suing X I'm not even going to jump into the fray this time around, as there's nothing new from when the lawsuit story first broke http://brucelawson.co.uk/index.php/2006/the-webdev-communitys-response-to-the-target-lawsuit/ P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor Enterprise Development University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Actually Joseph, we're in (near) total agreement. I am not arguing that these things should not be done. I do them every day and advocate to others that they should be done. I am merely saying that there is a cost associated with doing them. Accessible, standards-compliant design does cost more at the point that you do it, and this may or may not be outweighed by benefits (many of which are unquantifiable) in the future. Where we differ is that in my opinion a fixed-width layout is not an acceptable or accessible solution. A few years ago I would have said it was, but not now. With regard to CMSs, you have a lot of choice if you're building small websites. You may have almost no choice at all if you're building a very large one, and none whatsoever if you have inherited an existing system. The industry is crying out for plausible costings to justify adherence to web standards and accessible design. All we have is heresay. Companies (especially large ones) are not simply prepared to take our word for it. They want proof, and we can't give it to them. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Ortenzi Sent: 04 October 2007 12:16 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Sorry I have to disagree some of these points. Comments among your text On Oct 04, 2007, at 01:56, Steve Green wrote: can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility costs money comes from? It certainly can do depending on the content of your site and the target audience. I would concede that it probably doesn't cost more to produce a standards-compliant static website (i.e. has semantic structure and is valid HTML and CSS) but that is only the first step in making a website accessible. ...but a very big one IMHO. We've discussed many examples here, and I encounter them every day in our work. Obvious ones are the provision of captions, transcripts and audio descriptions for multimedia; that does not come cheap. ... but do provide value! And you can easily separate crucial information, like a user's manual, from advertising, our widgets are 20% better than theirs! and prioritise the crucial translations (but you KNOW they will prioritise the non-crucial at times don't you ;-)) It is not trivial to accommodate text resizing and screen widths ranging from less than 800px wide to upwards of 1600px while maintaining an acceptable layout. Especially so if someone else told you what the layout has to be. A fixed layout solves this and this is not an accessibility issue exactly, more a design and usability one. Converting artwork into accessible code takes more time than slicing and dicing a PhotoShop image. Making interactive content accessible (such as discovery-based e-learning applications) can be seriously challenging. Yes, but the experience makes the site much better, so it has a return on the investment. And then there's the cost of maintaining the accessibility of a site on an ongoing basis when most CMSs don't enforce the creation of accessible content. Big sites might have many dozens of content authors, none of whom gives a monkeys about accessibility so you need periodic or ongoing testing and repair to prevent the accessibility from degrading. we build our own cms's -and cms's can also be hacked if they truly are template based. Separation of structure from content os one of the cornerstones so you should not be choosing CMS's that won't let you do this. So yes, it often does cost more. These costs may well be offset to some extent by savings and other kinds of benefits but we need to be able to quantify this before we can make sweeping statements that it doesn't cost I remember reading some people putting a cost value on this but forget where I read it. You can bet Target have a very clear understanding of the value of accessible design right now. any more. Steve *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Which takes us back to the beginning (you should now get plausible costings of non-adherence): On Wed, October 3, 2007 4:52 pm, Andrew Maben wrote: Judge allows class action against Target Web site: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4 This might advance the cause of standards and accessibility, one might hope... Andrew On Thu, October 4, 2007 2:21 pm, Steve Green wrote: The industry is crying out for plausible costings to justify adherence to web standards and accessible design. All we have is heresay. Companies (especially large ones) are not simply prepared to take our word for it. They want proof, and we can't give it to them. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Ortenzi Sent: 04 October 2007 12:16 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Sorry I have to disagree some of these points. Comments among your text On Oct 04, 2007, at 01:56, Steve Green wrote: can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility costs money comes from? It certainly can do depending on the content of your site and the target audience. I would concede that it probably doesn't cost more to produce a standards-compliant static website (i.e. has semantic structure and is valid HTML and CSS) but that is only the first step in making a website accessible. ...but a very big one IMHO. We've discussed many examples here, and I encounter them every day in our work. Obvious ones are the provision of captions, transcripts and audio descriptions for multimedia; that does not come cheap. ... but do provide value! And you can easily separate crucial information, like a user's manual, from advertising, our widgets are 20% better than theirs! and prioritise the crucial translations (but you KNOW they will prioritise the non-crucial at times don't you ;-)) It is not trivial to accommodate text resizing and screen widths ranging from less than 800px wide to upwards of 1600px while maintaining an acceptable layout. Especially so if someone else told you what the layout has to be. A fixed layout solves this and this is not an accessibility issue exactly, more a design and usability one. Converting artwork into accessible code takes more time than slicing and dicing a PhotoShop image. Making interactive content accessible (such as discovery-based e-learning applications) can be seriously challenging. Yes, but the experience makes the site much better, so it has a return on the investment. And then there's the cost of maintaining the accessibility of a site on an ongoing basis when most CMSs don't enforce the creation of accessible content. Big sites might have many dozens of content authors, none of whom gives a monkeys about accessibility so you need periodic or ongoing testing and repair to prevent the accessibility from degrading. we build our own cms's -and cms's can also be hacked if they truly are template based. Separation of structure from content os one of the cornerstones so you should not be choosing CMS's that won't let you do this. So yes, it often does cost more. These costs may well be offset to some extent by savings and other kinds of benefits but we need to be able to quantify this before we can make sweeping statements that it doesn't cost I remember reading some people putting a cost value on this but forget where I read it. You can bet Target have a very clear understanding of the value of accessible design right now. any more. Steve *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Cost of Accessibility
I've been reading the Target thread and keep wondering about the many references to the cost of accessibility with a focus on supplying alt attributes. In a database supported eCommerce site, it's very, very easy to put alt attributes on product images. You simply take the name of the product from the database and embed it in the img tag so that it looks something like this, depending on what script/language/framework you're using. img src=%=(rsProduct(prodImageSmall)% alt=%=rsProduct(prodName)% / What I also don't understand on the Target site is the extensive use of image maps, and graphics for navigation. They cost more to code and maintain than dynamically filtering lists for navigation. If Target doesn't get how their methods are costing them sales, negatively impacting their brand, and increasing their web support costs; then should they be legislated into more profitable methods? Christie Mason *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On Oct 4, 2007, at 12:23 AM, Michael MD wrote: Opening the door to yet more lawsuits... In 2000, Bruce Maguire's accessibility complaint against the Olympics.com website was upheld. Did this lead to a spate of frivolous, discriminatory lawsuits in Australia? As none of the advocates of business' freedom to discriminate in any way they choose has brought such a flood to our attention, I would assume that there have in fact been few or no accessibility suits filed. On the other hand the existence of WSG is surely a measure of how seriously the issue of accessibility is now taken in the Australian developer community... And, please, arguing that legislating that business accept the responsibility to provide accessibility (or be legally accountable in general) is unacceptable unless they are in receipt of government monies is laughable - every member of a society is the recipient of all manner of benefits, the price we pay to enjoy the benefits is to accept the society's behavioral norms, which are commonly codified in law. Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:01 AM, Michael MD wrote: I think the best response to ignorance is education ... not lawsuits... But as Target chose to dismiss attempts at education? Obviously education is preferable to recourse to law, but education sometimes fails. That's how people end up in jail... Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On 10/4/07, Joseph Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, reading her blog she seems to be a knee-jerk reactionary Republican who wants government support when they get shafted and government to lay off when others accuse them of shafting. Someone earlier said she was intelligent - I find little evidence of this. I can't speak at all for Michelle's character but let's not make this a mudsling. It's way off-topic. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
In 2000, Bruce Maguire's accessibility complaint against the Olympics.com website was upheld. Did this lead to a spate of frivolous, discriminatory lawsuits in Australia? Did it lead to any improvement in accessibility of commercial, government or hobby web sites in Australia? Did it lead to any improvement in the Olympics website itself? I try to ensure my professional work is accessible, but I am far from being persuaded that legislation of this nature can ever be effective, without also being a burden on smaller sites, particularly those that are no longer actively maintained. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On 4 Oct 2007, at 17:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try to ensure my professional work is accessible, but I am far from being persuaded that legislation of this nature can ever be effective, without also being a burden on smaller sites, particularly those that are no longer actively maintained. tongue-in-cheek Maybe we *should* legislate to get rid of sites that are no longer actively maintained? /tongue-in-cheek ;) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In 2000, Bruce Maguire's accessibility complaint against the Olympics.com website was upheld. Did this lead to a spate of frivolous, discriminatory lawsuits in Australia? Did it lead to any improvement in accessibility of commercial, government or hobby web sites in Australia? Did it lead to any improvement in the Olympics website itself? I try to ensure my professional work is accessible, but I am far from being persuaded that legislation of this nature can ever be effective, without also being a burden on smaller sites, particularly those that are no longer actively maintained. Necessary and important websites are where it really matters. If your homepage with your Quake highscores, photos of your cat, favourite animated .gifs and the depths of space as the background isn't accessible, I don't really think anybody gives a sh!t. It really isn't going to damage the standards movement in the slightest. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Ronald Barnsley is out of the office.
I will be out of the office starting 05/10/2007 and will not return until 08/10/2007. I will respond to your message when I return. ** IMPORTANT: This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited by several Commonwealth Acts of Parliament. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Mark Harris wrote: I'm frightened you knew that, or even thought to google it... I've been waiting a while to post this again, so now will do... In a survey of attitudes and responses to audio description of TV and video, the American Foundation for the Blind found that some respondents would indeed like to watch audio-described X-rated films. In one poll as part of this single survey, 9% of respondents voiced that preference; in another poll, 22%. Men wanted described adult films more often than women. The mind fairly boggles as to how this would actually be done, but the desire is there. And certain broadcasters in the United Kingdom are required to audio-describe a portion of their programming; “adult” programming is not, in fact, exempt, so all this may actually come to pass! -- http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html#h2-6030 .Matthew Cruickshank http://holloway.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Christie Mason wrote: If Target doesn't get how their methods are costing them sales, negatively impacting their brand, and increasing their web support costs; then should they be legislated into more profitable methods? Gday Christie, It's not about the cost nor the profitability. It's about how we behave in our community, the social interaction. It's about legislating a fair go for all (sorry for the Aussie colloquialism), regardless of race, gender, height, eye colour, political views, religion or ability. We need to protect our community, our inclusiveness for all. Historically, the world has had times where these ideals have been disregarded, and I cannot think of any examples where it has ended well. Accessibility is how to behave properly in a mannerly fashion towards all. Let's face it, inaccessibility is basically very bad manners. Most manners are socially re-enforced, however, when manners degrade beyond a certain point, then they are legislated against, for example, jay-walking, swearing, vandalism, theft, etc. That's what we are talking about: legislating against very bad manners, that is, discrimination against disability. Profitability or cost doesn't come into the equation. Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
The question is, why should we force anyone to do it? Well the short answer is: because corporations won't do it without being forced. So if we want a non-discriminatory society, we have to force corporations to do good things. No one makes his site non-accessible out of discriminating motives. That doesn't help the people being discriminated against. They do it because they are either lazy or ignorant. Ignoring a request to fix the site is still not discrimination, it is simply not caring. Target's managers are dumb, but they didn't do anything illegal. I don't know American law well enough to be sure, but under .au law that would actually be classed as discrimination and hence illegal... because it is discriminating against a group of people based on disability. They are treating disabled people as second-class citizens. Australia has laws against that. They're not enforced all that effectively, but we have laws. Target are saying If you are blind, you are worthless. We only take money from people who aren't like you. In a physical environment the equivalent would be turning them away at the door. Would you tolerate that if it was based on gender, religion or race? cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Christie wrote: . . . It's very, very difficult to defend the Target site, it's an unusable mess so I don't use it, but Target does have the right to have a bad site. Not if they lose this case, they don't. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
-Original Message- From: Ben Buchanan Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:35 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility I believe web accessibility is in society's best interests. Companies should be forced to do it, just as they are forced (at least in .au) to provide physical accessibilty for their buildings. Christie Replies Yes Target, and other public spaces, have been forced into accessible parking, sidewalks and bathrooms, municipally owned spaces actually lagged for-profit spaces by many years. But, and this is a big but, they have not been forced into making their display of products to purchase, or the location of those products, accessible to physically challenged people. In a Target, or any other store, there are no supportive technologies enforced to read aisle signage, location of checkout counters, the difference between a box of corn flakes and a box of poison, etc. In many ways, laws that attempt to force behavior do more harm than good. They don't eliminate prejudice, they just force people to be more subtle in their expressions of prejudice. The hiring of disabled people actually decreased after protective laws were passed. It's much easier to hide why you didn't hire a disabled person than to fire, with merit, someone in a protected group after you've hired them. Christie Mason *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Cost of Accessibility
Christie wrote: It's very, very difficult to defend the Target site, it's an unusable mess so I don't use it, but Target does have the right to have a bad site. Kerry Not if they lose this case, they don't. Christie Then they will still have to the right to have a bad, accessible site. --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
