I'm glad to hear that so many of us are experts on law and other topics
that have nothing to do with web standards whatsoever.
What does this suit have to do with web standards?
Well, perhaps down the road somewhere more strict governing will be put
in place.
Do we want the government
Andrew Maben wrote:
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.comwebsite was upheld. Did this lead to a spate of frivolous,
discriminatory lawsuits in Australia? As none
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
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
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?
That's not what Target are saying. It's
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?
That's not what Target are saying. It's
Well the first round has been decided a couple of days ago:
http://www.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEWID=221
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
the DDA does apply to websites
cynicallet more legal battles begin/cynical
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?
That's not what Target are saying. It's
From: Ortenzi
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?
Escalators and
What is baffling about Target's position here is that while on the
question of the web site they behave like ignorant trolls, meanwhile
they managed to really break ground in usability with their
prescription delivery system - http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/
That's not what Target are saying. It's like a deaf person comes
into their store and requests for assistance but no one speaks the
sign language and he can't lip read. Is it discrimination not to
have a sign-speaking person in your store just in case a deaf personcomes
in?
You analogy is
This conversation has been very interesting to follow these past few days.
There are two topics that have not surfaced in the posts I've read.
1. The commercial sector does not take accessibility (on the web) seriously.
My team works with many large clients globally in the web space, both
Hi
I hope this thread isn't closed.
I have never worked on large retail sites as I tend to work on non-profit and
government sites, but if the problem has to do with alt tags then I have very
little sympathy for Target as this seems like a minor thing.
A person with a disability expends at
The argument that providing reasonable access for blind/vision-impaired
visitors/customers implies an equal need to provide translations into every
language on the planet is a straw man. Last time I looked, the inability to
speak English was not a disability (in any legal sense) although it's
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ;-)
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
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
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,
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
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
*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!
: [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
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
.
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
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
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
, 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
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
: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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
I don't know how many of you are familiar with Michelle Malkin. She
posted about the Target lawsuit today, and although she is an
intelligent woman, she doesn't have a clue when it comes to web
accessibility.
There also seems to be a lot of ignorance among the commenters and I
would appreciate it
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is
without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for
not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no
reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory.
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Wilson
Sent: 03 October 2007 22:05
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is
without merit
would love to but she won't let you comment unless you are logged in.
free speech, eh?
On Oct 3 2007, at 21:52, Julie Romanowski wrote:
I don't know how many of you are familiar with Michelle Malkin. She
posted about the Target lawsuit today, and although she is an
intelligent woman, she
Maybe I'm missing something here, but Mount Everest was not man-made. The
Target site on the other hand ...
Cat
On 10/3/07, Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to
include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript
of ever performance. That would of course be madness...
Why should a different standard be applied to the web?
On 10/3/07, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL
] [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
I can only assume this is an attempt at trolling...
Either that or phrases like the web is for everyone has fallen on deaf
ears. Luckily, there are laws in many countries to stop companies and
agencies doing whatever the hell the like when it comes to website and
accessibility.
Russ
A
You make an easy error Chris.
Contrary to popular belief, websites are NOT visual, there is a lot
of text and code in there, placed by good website designers, to allow
sight-poor people, as well as people who need the text to be large,
or require high contrast text, etc, to read the site.
Chris Wilson wrote:
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications
to include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written
transcript of ever performance. That would of course be madness...
I'd like a car analogy next please.
.Matthew Cruickshank
I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards
and accesability, but not at this cost. Should target improve their site?
Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No.
Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Yours? Mine? Certainly not a
judge who likely has no
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
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Cruickshank
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 8:14 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Chris Wilson wrote:
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require
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
Chris Wilson wrote:
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require
all publications to include a braille copy, all musical
artists to provide a written transcript
of ever performance. That would of course be madness...
No, not madness. Instead, it would be a good way to bring art to
Chris Wilson wrote:
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit
is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers
for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there
is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in
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
Julie Romanowski wrote:
I don't know how many of you are familiar with Michelle Malkin. She
posted about the Target lawsuit today, and although she is an
intelligent woman, she doesn't have a clue when it comes to web
accessibility.
Malkin doesn't have much of a clue, full stop. She is an
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?
Taking bets as to how long before Goodwin's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law kicks in. I
Andrew Boyd wrote:
My suggestion is that rather than cars it should have something to do with cats saying
Can I haz agsessibillitee?
:)
I'm in ur CMS, changing ur links
***
List Guidelines:
bigeasyweb.co.uk ?
There is no reason why an accessible site should cause blindness.
On 10/3/07, Stuart Foulstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:18 pm, Chris Wilson wrote:
I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support
standards
and accesability...
No, not madness. Instead, it would be a good way to bring art to
audiences that might not otherwise know it.
Yes, but once you start applying that logic inside legislated rules of
presentation and usage (which is the issue here, or will be), a site can no
longer be the art the artist desires.
] On
Behalf Of Chris Wilson
Sent: 03 October 2007 23:01
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to
include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require
all publications to include a braille copy
Copyrighted publications in the US are copied to Braille for the most part
(with copyright holder's permission) by the Library of Congress.
I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mark Harris
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:47 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Julie Romanowski wrote:
I don't know how many of you are familiar with Michelle Malkin. She
posted about
On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:18 pm, Chris Wilson wrote:
I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards
and accesability...
This is patently untrue. You have no concept of accessibility and the
standards and why they exist.
Should target improve their site?
Yes.
As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least
useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read
Braille.
How many web users are disabled to the point of using screen readers (anyone
using it by choice not by necessity doesn't count, that's their
ADMIN
OK, lets keep this discussion civil and productive, people!
Russ
Admin
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL
Oh, this mailing list has been stagnant for quite some time, needs a good
argument if you ask me. :)
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
.
Seems plain dumb to me.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Julie Romanowski wrote:
I don't know how many of you are familiar
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like.
Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle
manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for
accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack
of is in no was
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
http://26bits.com/
An accessible site shouldn't make everyone think they've gone blind.
On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:56 pm, Chris Wilson wrote:
bigeasyweb.co.uk ?
There is no reason why an accessible site should cause blindness.
On 10/3/07, Stuart Foulstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Ian Chamberlain
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:18 PM
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
: 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
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
These are some of the worst analogies I've ever seen. The target
website is not a work of art, it's not a mountain, it's not a car,
it's not a drive up ATM, it's not a building.
Not to mention the slippery slopes, like Well if they force Target to
fix their website, next they'll be forcing it on
Perhaps the most amazing thing in all of this is Target¹s willingness to
continue this fight into court. Aside from all the stunningly bad publicity
of a major company standing up to fight a group of seemingly defenseless
blind people, and the ridiculously poor example they set for all
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
Speaking of ' logical fallacy'
On 10/3/07, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are some of the worst analogies I've ever seen. The target
website is not a work of art, it's not a mountain, it's not a car,
it's not a drive up ATM, it's not a building.
Not to mention the slippery
-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
Chris Wilson wrote:
I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support
standards and accesability, but not at this cost. Should target improve
their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No.
No you're point wasn't missed. I agree with you. In fact my first
Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Chris Wilson wrote:
I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support
standards and accesability, but not at this cost. Should target
improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No.
No you're point wasn't missed. I
On 10/4/07, Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking of ' logical fallacy'
If you have an argument, make it. Don't assume that just because you
think you're clever and right, that everyone else automatically will
too.
On 10/4/07, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
