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]
***
