Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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 involved with web page construction? No. Maybe this is an opportunity to point out the exact failure in the site, offer a fix, and then go through our own commerce sites to make sure we don't have any similar problems. Maybe the more entrepreneurial of us will spam store owners offering shopping cart repair services. Maybe, just maybe this will get thrown out of court and quickly forgotten. Maybe, target will fess up to being an evil corporation and explain the whole problem was the inability of the English speaking executives to clearly explain the problem to the developers in China that earn $0.15 an hour working on the site, reminding us why to hire local people. Hopefully something positive will come from it. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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 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. 0 law suits to be precise. If fact between 2000 and 2006 only 3 complaints about inaccessible web sites were lodged with HREOC and all three where resolved amicably. None made it to court, and nobody attempted to bypass HREOC negotiation and go directly into court. 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... Only in some sectors,there a still a number of inaccessible web sites in the .au domain, but is has been steadily improving. -- Nick Cowie http://nickcowie.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
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
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! Don't be so ignorant. 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 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. 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! 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
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 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 person comes in? we have to force corporations to do good things. It doesn't sound right. Why should anyone be forced to do the right thing? You can't force anyone to be nice, generous and good-natured, you can only encourage that. Forcing people to do the right thing is wrong. *** 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
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 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 person comes in? we have to force corporations to do good things. It doesn't sound right. Why should anyone be forced to do the right thing? You can't force anyone to be nice, generous and good-natured, you can only encourage that. Forcing people to do the right thing is wrong. *** 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 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 *** 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
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 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 person comes in? we have to force corporations to do good things. It doesn't sound right. Why should anyone be forced to do the right thing? You can't force anyone to be nice, generous and good-natured, you can only encourage that. Forcing people to do the right thing is wrong. *** 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
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 elevators were not legislated into existence. Before there were malls, stores figured out that it was more efficient to build multiple levels and then make it easy for customers to access those multiple levels. 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
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/ 2007/01/26/the-target-pill-bottle-isnt-a-bottle-its-a-system/ go figure... 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
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 incorrect. There are two concepts at work here, reasonable accommodation and undue hardship. Although both concepts apply to actual employment, they can serve as an educational basis for education and enlightenment in this thread. You can read about them here --- http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html Requiring a sign speaker to be employed at every Target store would impose an undue hardship upon the company, especially if statistics prove the customer base of deaf customers requiring such assistance is effectively nonexistent. There could very well be isolated cases, however, where it would make sense, if not required. For example, if a Target store were located near Gallaudet University (http://www.gallaudet.edu/x266.xml) it would make sense to not only offer such services, but outreach to employ deaf people for their deaf customers. Then again, creating and maintaining a commercial web site effectively expands the potential customer base to where it is quite reasonable to assume that a fair number of potential customers are disabled and accommodation for their disabilities not only makes sense, but is warranted. On the other hand, Target is hard-pressed to prove that offering an accessible web site is not reasonable accommodation for any of their customers (including disabled customers), let alone pose an undue hardship upon the company to maintain such a site. On the contrary, the tools, techniques and expertise are readily available to do that no added cost as part of regular site maintenance. From a purely technical perspective, IMHO, there is no defense that Target (or any other large company) can make that they cannot design/build/maintain an accessible web site where doing so would impose an undue burden upon the company. (More importantly, under the concept of undue burden, a large employer cannot claim cost as a mitigating factor when it comes to making a reasonable accommodation. Target had earnings in excess of US$59 billion in 2006.) In fact, based on maturity of the web environment these days, any company with a web site (including traditional mom and pop businesses), or desiring one, would be hard pressed to make a claim of undue burden they cannot have their web site built/maintained according to web standards, including web accessibility as defined within those standards. If that means a fair number of these web building companies (including one person outfits) need to lift their game, or get out of the web business, then that's the cost of doing business in a free marketplace. It doesn't sound right. Why should anyone be forced to do the right thing? You can't force anyone to be nice, generous and good-natured, you can only encourage that. Forcing people to do the right thing is wrong. Actually, you can, and it happens every day. Laws and regulations are enacted all the time to impact upon and change personal behavior. It's been that way throughout human history, first as families then expanding into larger society as social norms and graces. And when that proved insufficient as societies matured, governments and laws. You may claim a person has the right to get drunk and act like an idiot (which they do), but society deemed long ago that such egregious behavior in public is not in society's best interest, nor that individual. More so, when the behavior of that individual has a negative impact upon innocent people (think drunk drivers). It seems to me the real issue here is ignorance of life these days, with respect to others who are perceived to be not like you. Just because someone is different is too often a misguided and immature excuse to exclude them from being treated equally and on their merits. We even have words for the two most pronounced of these attitudes and behaviors, racism and sexism. Individuals and companies will always take the easy way out here, unless society at large says this is wrong. Target is wrong. Dennis Lapcewich USDA Forest Service Webmaster Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360-891-5024 - Voice | 360-891-5045 - Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- Anonymous
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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 least 4 times as much energy than someone with no disability just to get through the day. Target could use a bit of kindness on that level alone, what could this company do to make the life of someone a bit easier and hopefully little cost. The argument that says that folks with visually disabilities can physically go to the store to shop is also not true. Blind folks cannot shop in a store without a sited person there to help them and tell them where things are and so they can't browse easily. Websites have the ability to open doors, allowing the visually impaired to browse and do this alone and independently. Although I am not an expert and may be incorrect, all assistive devices are extremely expensive, and I have a feeling at least some or not all of the burden falls on the person who needs the assistive device (at least in the US), such as a screen reader and an up-to-date computer to support it. In comparison, I think making a website accessible is a minor cost. Nancy Johnson Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC *** 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 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 certainly a disadvantage in Australia! I don't know of anywhere that requires businesses to provide services in anything other than the official language/s of the country. Target apparently provided discounts that were available only online. They built their site in a way which made those discounts inaccessible to blind people and refused to change the site when the problem was politely pointed out to them. An equivalent bricks-and-mortar equivalent would perhaps be to offer discount vouchers that were not available to people in wheelchairs. If you could rely on businesses to act in a non-discriminatory way because otherwise a group of their potential customers would shop elsewhere, anti-discrimination legislation would not be necessary. And no-one would ever miss out on a job for which they were the best-qualified applicant merely because of their gender/ ethnic background/ sexuality etc etc etc. Elizabeth www.spiegelweb.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***attachment: winmail.dat
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: 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: 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: 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: 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] ***
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: 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] ***
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: 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: 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 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. *** 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 find it hard to believe I'm reading this in the WSG. The Target website is truly appalling - we use it to illustrate some the worst possible design practices when we run training sessions. It discriminates against anyone who has to use a non-graphical user agent (not just blind people), and this is particularly unacceptable because it doesn't need to be that way. There's nothing about the content that requires the disgusting coding techniques they have used. If private companies were free to 'do whatever the hell they like' we would still have racial, religious, sex and disability discrimination to a far higher degree than we do now. Is there something special about websites that you think should exempt them from the laws that bind everything else? Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Steve _ 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 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. *** 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
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 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 if some our WSG members can help to set these people straight. 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/. Julie Romanowski Software Engineering - J2EE Engagement Team State Farm Insurance Company office: 309-735-5248 mobile: 309-532-4027 *** 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
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 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] *** *** 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
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 PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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. *** 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
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] *** *** 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 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 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. *** 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
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. SO the analogy of a car is not valid. Sight-disabled people can have websites read to them by software on their computer. So they have a perfectly valid car for driving on the roads, since it can read for them. So if you put the road signs where they can't read them, and make the text too small and the same colour as the background, you are consciously preventing them from taking part in society. People with disabilities have software that can read the site to them and allow them to get the information or shop that store as well. If the design doesn't take this into account, and it is not difficult to do and actually makes the site a better site, easier to navigate and more search engine friendly and load quicker, then it negates them as a possible customer. Just like a newly built shop - if you don't put in easy wheelchair access you remove those people from your possible customer base. The GREAT thing about the internet is that is a useful tool for people who have difficulty getting round and is a useful tool to help them have a half-decent life. So when you build a new site, and design and code to acceptable web standards, then those people with sight or motion disabilities can shop too, because the designers took them into account when they were designing it. NOt EXTRA work, just different design. Your screw-them attitude smells of intolerance and forgets the fact that all men (people) are created equal and have equal rights to services and resources. And the funny thing is, it only takes intelligence, not extra money, to make it happen! On Oct 3 2007, at 22:04, 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 no was discriminatory. *** 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
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 http://docvert.org/ *** 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 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 concept of the situation or technology. Cases like this lead to red blooded legislation that takes far too long to fix, and even longer to repeal. On 10/3/07, Cat Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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] *** *** 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
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
My suggestion is that rather than cars it should have something to do with cats saying Can I haz agsessibillitee? :) Cheers, Andrew Andrew Boyd Consultant SMS Management Technology M 0413 048 542 T +61 2 6279 7100 F +61 2 6279 7101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] About SMS: Ground Floor, 8 Brindabella Circuit, CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609 www.smsmt.com SMS Management Technology (SMS) [ASX:SMX] is Australia's largest, publicly listed Management Services company. We solve complex problems and transform business through Consulting, People and Technology From: [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 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 http://docvert.org/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you received this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any information contained herein. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The Company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. Thank you for your cooperation. *** 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 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] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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 audiences that might not otherwise know it. Why should a different standard be applied to the web? It's not different, anymore than wheelchair ramps outside buildings are different. I'm not in a wheelchair, but I often use the ramp in preference to the steps as my left knee is pretty screwed and sometimes doesn't bend like it should. As the internet (which is more than the web, remember) becomes not only ubiquitous but required to function in the modern world, barriers such as inaccessible websites do truly pose a problem for those who operate differently. They can't choose to use a different website if the company at issue is the only purveyor of the product or service that they need. However, if it _is_ different, then we should apply it because we can, because it's the right thing to do and because a commercial site open to more users will generate more sales, just by the law of averages. 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
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 no was discriminatory. Thoughts like this really belong in the comments section of the article. They could join such pearls of wisdom as: With all the companies selling their wares on the web, why don't the blind just move on (no pun intended) to an organization that caters to their needs? I'm waiting for a blind man to sue Playboy or Hustler magazine for 'equal access' I wondered if an Iraqi war veteran who lost his sight in combat joins the class action suit would that cause the judge to reverse herself (she might implode if she had to rule in favor of a soldier)? But then I realized that the hypothetical wasn't realistic because no one brave enough to serve America in war could ever be so stupid as to associate with this moron class action. [Mike - yup, not only disabled, but stupid *and* unpatriotic.] As a part-time website developer I need to point out a couple of things that need to be understood on this matter. First of all ... Although I can fully understand the problems of accessing websites for those with eyesight problems this type of need is normally taken care of with software the individual purchases and installs on their own computer ... not by the website itself ... Secondly ... to carry this a step further ... to be fully compliant the software at the website end would be required to be able to translate and verbalize the text into every spoken language on the face of the earth ... not just the language in which the text was written bty the website owners ... fail to do that and you would face never-ending lawsuits from people that didn't speak English or whatever the native language of the website ... [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 fall of Rome was accomplished largely by similar politically correct social miscreants. [Mike - this last one is my favourite. Maybe Al Qaeda is behind the lawsuit?] This article has totally made my day in the it's so bad all you can do is laugh mode. 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
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] ***
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 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 American right-wing nut-bar, slightly less offensive than Ann Coulter. So are the people who regularly comment on her blog. There also seems to be a lot of ignorance among the commenters and I would appreciate it if some our WSG members can help to set these people straight. Pearls before swine, They don't WANT to see, because it might require them to do something that doesn't immediately put dollars in their pockets. 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/. hmmm... I can't help wondering if this is a troll in itself to get more people to visit the site and raise a controversy (sensible patriotic 'Merkins versus hippie scumbags!! Film at 11!). Probably not but that's the level of suspicion the left/right battle in the US draws from either side. 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
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 figure Russ will shut things down before then, but otherwise, an hour at most? :) 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
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: 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
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... This is patently untrue. You have no concept of accessibility and the standards and why they exist. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. It's not required by the court - it's required by law. The court is just administering the legislation which has been enacted by national government to help bring about a fully democratic society. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Don't you even know this? See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for a clue. (aside) Regardless of accessibility issues, target.com is very bad site and full of coding errors. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry out financial transactions through it. *** 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
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. However, if it _is_ different, then we should apply it because we can, because it's the right thing to do and because a commercial site open to more users will generate more sales, just by the law of averages. Yes, we should, laws shouldn't mandate it. When you take away the ability to choose the right path and instead force it on a person, that person looses the ability to be good as they never choose to do good, it's forced on them - yes? *** 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
Because it was explicitly designed to be accessible. And because it is relatively easy and the incremental cost is small. 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. However, many have a scanner that allows them to read printed material using OCR and a text-to-speech converter. The most useful alternatives are large-print versions and audio recordings, and many organisations will make their publications available in these formats on request. Have you actually looked at the coding on the Target website? I have, many times. The accessibility (and standards-compliance) could be improved dramatically at virtually no cost. One of the biggest problems is that nearly all the links are graphical but no 'alt' attributes have been provided. You try to navigate when JAWS reads link graphic six hundred twenty five million three hundred forty two thousand seven hundred ninety one. Where does that link point to? Damned if I know. And each page contains several hundred links like it. The secondary navigation might look like text but it isn't - it's a honking great image map. Want to resize the text? Sorry, can't do that. Semantic structure? Ha ha ha... You could understand if they just came out and said screw disabled people - we don't care, but instead they give us this garbage about how it's as accessible as possible and it meets all the guidelines and they really do care ever so much. They are not claiming the right to 'do whatever the hell they want' - they are trying to kid people that this is as good as it gets and that it can't be any better. And that is just so far from the truth. Steve _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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 PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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. *** 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
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 the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Mount Everest?! Please, get serious. If you're going to provide a comparison, use something logical. Your comparison is akin to comparing an apple to a hippopotamus. Not even close. Let's instead compare the brick-n-mortar Target stores with the web site. Are you against the law that requires access to their stores, ramps, parking spots, wider doors, restroom aids, etc. Where is the line drawn? Why did that law come to be? It is the result of the courts because businesses didn't do it on their own and had to be pushed. The ADA spoke for a minority. Businesses are notorious for doing the very least that they can until the law tells them otherwise. Notorious! It's all about numbers, money, and risk management. I despise lawsuits, but this one is for the greater good, and as has been proven in the past, necessary. It's hard enough living with a disability without the ignorant, the selfish, or the greedy making life harder. Target spent millions making their stores accessible. To make the site accessible is so much less. So much easier for them. And yet, left to command themselves, they did nothing. In fact, once asked to correct the issues the first time all they did was complain, try to justify their crappy site, and took little to no action. Choice? Cut off your legs and see how limited choice gets. The web is easy access for lots of people who have certain difficulties, even with full ADA compliance in a physical location. My cousin was a quadriplegic and she hardly went anywhere because it was a huge hassle doing anything. Give her a pointed stick, put it in her mouth, and place a computer in front of her, though, and she was free to roam and happy as a lark. She literally drooled over the experience! I can't see how any business or site can justify the failure to remove the barriers that would have blocked her access. I better stop now. Mike Cherim *** 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
No, not a troll. Someone sent me this link and the comments I read were disheartening. I don't know if it would make a difference, but I wanted to see if we could actually get some of these people to start thinking. Maybe it's a lost cause... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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 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 American right-wing nut-bar, slightly less offensive than Ann Coulter. So are the people who regularly comment on her blog. There also seems to be a lot of ignorance among the commenters and I would appreciate it if some our WSG members can help to set these people straight. Pearls before swine, They don't WANT to see, because it might require them to do something that doesn't immediately put dollars in their pockets. 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/. hmmm... I can't help wondering if this is a troll in itself to get more people to visit the site and raise a controversy (sensible patriotic 'Merkins versus hippie scumbags!! Film at 11!). Probably not but that's the level of suspicion the left/right battle in the US draws from either side. mark *** 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 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. Should the be required to by a court? No. It's not required by the court - it's required by law. The court is just administering the legislation which has been enacted by national government to help bring about a fully democratic society. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Don't you even know this? See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for a clue. (aside) Regardless of accessibility issues, target.com is very bad site and full of coding errors. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry out financial transactions through it. *** 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
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 own issue)? Probably not much more than that. But you don't advocate publishers being required to aid them do you? Doesn't sound like it. Because it was explicitly designed to be accessible. And because it is relatively easy and the incremental cost is small. 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. However, many have a scanner that allows them to read printed material using OCR and a text-to-speech converter. The most useful alternatives are large-print versions and audio recordings, and many organisations will make their publications available in these formats on request. Have you actually looked at the coding on the Target website? I have, many times. The accessibility (and standards-compliance) could be improved dramatically at virtually no cost. One of the biggest problems is that nearly all the links are graphical but no 'alt' attributes have been provided. You try to navigate when JAWS reads link graphic six hundred twenty five million three hundred forty two thousand seven hundred ninety one. Where does that link point to? Damned if I know. And each page contains several hundred links like it. The secondary navigation might look like text but it isn't - it's a honking great image map. Want to resize the text? Sorry, can't do that. Semantic structure? Ha ha ha... You could understand if they just came out and said screw disabled people - we don't care, but instead they give us this garbage about how it's as accessible as possible and it meets all the guidelines and they really do care ever so much. They are not claiming the right to 'do whatever the hell they want' - they are trying to kid people that this is as good as it gets and that it can't be any better. And that is just so far from the truth. Steve //* And here we have the overly emotional response that is exactly why we get such useless red blooded legislation. I know about being handicapped, but it doesn't color my logic as I can put the two aside, try it sometime. On 10/3/07, Mike at Green-Beast.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Mount Everest?! Please, get serious. If you're going to provide a comparison, use something logical. Your comparison is akin to comparing an apple to a hippopotamus. Not even close. Let's instead compare the brick-n-mortar Target stores with the web site. Are you against the law that requires access to their stores, ramps, parking spots, wider doors, restroom aids, etc. Where is the line drawn? Why did that law come to be? It is the result of the courts because businesses didn't do it on their own and had to be pushed. The ADA spoke for a minority. Businesses are notorious for doing the very least that they can until the law tells them otherwise. Notorious! It's all about numbers, money, and risk management. I despise lawsuits, but this one is for the greater good, and as has been proven in the past, necessary. It's hard enough living with a disability without the ignorant, the selfish, or the greedy making life harder. Target spent millions making their stores accessible. To make the site accessible is so much less. So much easier for them. And yet, left to command themselves, they did nothing. In fact, once asked to correct the issues the first time all they did was complain, try to justify their crappy site, and took little to no action. Choice? Cut off your legs and see how limited choice gets. The web is easy access for lots of people who have certain difficulties, even with full ADA compliance in a physical location. My cousin was a quadriplegic and she hardly went anywhere because it was a huge hassle doing anything. Give her a pointed stick, put it in her mouth, and place a computer in front of her, though, and she was free to roam and happy as a lark. She literally drooled over the experience! I can't see how any business or site can justify the failure to remove the barriers that would have blocked her access. I better stop now. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard -ADMIN
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 PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
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. - 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 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 American right-wing nut-bar, slightly less offensive than Ann Coulter. So are the people who regularly comment on her blog. There also seems to be a lot of ignorance among the commenters and I would appreciate it if some our WSG members can help to set these people straight. Pearls before swine, They don't WANT to see, because it might require them to do something that doesn't immediately put dollars in their pockets. 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/. hmmm... I can't help wondering if this is a troll in itself to get more people to visit the site and raise a controversy (sensible patriotic 'Merkins versus hippie scumbags!! Film at 11!). Probably not but that's the level of suspicion the left/right battle in the US draws from either side. mark *** 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
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. Your analogy makes no sense, unless you think the state should be required to grant a drivers license to Ray Charles. OTOH, vehicle manufacturers are required to follow various safety regulations, the purpose of which is not so much to protect the idiot driver from his own incompetence and stupidity, but to protect innocent people from the occasional incompetent and stupid driver. The Target lawsuit is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to Wikipedia, Title III of ADA says, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. Public accommodations include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things. In other words, it's illegal to discriminate against 20 percent of the US population (that's 60 million people) who have some sort of disability preventing them from enjoying public accommodation as anyone else. The lawsuit is arguing that public accommodation also applies to private (commercial) web sites, in addition to brick and mortar operations. If you truly are for accessibility, I'm sure you don't complain about the wheelchair ramps at crosswalks, the disability buttons at building entrances, and the extra-large private toilet blocks everywhere else, to name just a few. None of these features negatively impact the able-bodied person one bit. On the contrary, wheelchair ramps at crosswalks are seen to have hidden benefits for non-disabled people as well. All require considerable sums of money to install and maintain. Yet applying that same standard to web sites is not applicable here? Disability does not mean seclusion. In fact, disabled people wield considerable consumer buying power on their own, let alone influence others and their consumer spending. Or, put it this way. Considering Mac users account for a single digit percentage of all computers connected to the Internet, why even cater to them, let alone acknowledge their existence? If you believe that then here's hoping your life insurance is fully paid up. Mac influence with respect to the Internet, if not the greater world, is greatly disproportionate to their numbers, practically all of it for the better of all of us. Or do you firmly believe Zune beats iPod hands down? :) Web accessibility is not an addon issue. Web accessibility is not an additional expense. Web accessibility makes good business sense. Most importantly, web accessibility is the right thing to do. And the final twist is that everyone, *everyone,* who uses the Internet for whatever reason, will someday require accessible assistance when it comes to using the Internet. Dennis Lapcewich USDA Forest Service Webmaster Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360-891-5024 - Voice | 360-891-5045 - Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- Anonymous *** 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
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] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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 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. Should the be required to by a court? No. It's not required by the court - it's required by law. The court is just administering the legislation which has been enacted by national government to help bring about a fully democratic society. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Don't you even know this? See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for a clue. (aside) Regardless of accessibility issues, target.com is very bad site and full of coding errors. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry out financial transactions through it. *** 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
Darn it! Sorry, people, it looks like comment registration is now closed (http://michellemalkin.com/terms-of-use/). Here's her contact email - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please be civil, ladies and gentlemen. We want to educate this woman, not heckle her. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL 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 and then comment. *** 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
To add to the colorful discussion... There is certainly merit behind being able to design a site the way you want. I've written private web applications where javascript was required - cookies too. In the public sphere, its a whole different story. Yes, you can choose to visit a website, just like you can choose to visit the local library. The library is required to offer some level of accessibility to disabled visitors. A website should do the same, especially in an instance where it is designed for the general public seeking public information. On the target suit, at a glance it does seem frivolous. Blind people shopping online does seem crazy since we tend to think of the web in such visual terms. In reality, the suit is a result of target's basic refusal to change the checkout process on the site so a screenreader or other device can checkout using the shopping system. If I remember correctly there were given a year if not more to do so and still didn't with the suit being the consequence. We all know that this would not be difficult to do. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Green wrote: 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] *** *** 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] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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 ALL websites everywhere! and Well if they force target to make their site accessable to blind people, what's next? People who can't speak english? It's amazing how much these things sound like arguments, and seem to make sense, but every one of them is a logical fallacy of some kind. What we are talking about here, is a Catalog of products, using a technology which is inherently easy to make accessable. It does not require a huge investment of material. The catalog in this case, is used for online purchasing, or making purchasing decisions before entering a physical store. We're not talking about a grand visual experience, or a masterpeice of literature here, or any other such thing which would allow arguments about freedom of speach, or expression. 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. So we're talking about target conciously discriminating against a portion of the populace from purchasing goods from their store, or finding information about their products, so they could have the perception of saving money, by not having to hire competant web developers. This is not a freedom of choice issue. It's an issue of choosing the illusion of money, over people. And as we can see now, it was a bad choice, not only because the money they could have spent on accessiblity will now be spent on lawyers, but they also lost the potential money from those lost customers. The money they choose truly was illusory. *** 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
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 corporations by worrying more about form over function, is the sheer economic stupidity As almost anyone here in this group would tell you, the work required to make their site simply not offensive to the blind (e.g. just adding alt tags) would probably cost them a tiny fraction of the legal bills. I'm quite sure any of a number of people here would gladly help them accomplish that at their legal team's hourly rate :) Chris *** 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
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 slopes, like Well if they force Target to fix their website, next they'll be forcing it on ALL websites everywhere! and Well if they force target to make their site accessable to blind people, what's next? People who can't speak english? It's amazing how much these things sound like arguments, and seem to make sense, but every one of them is a logical fallacy of some kind. What we are talking about here, is a Catalog of products, using a technology which is inherently easy to make accessable. It does not require a huge investment of material. The catalog in this case, is used for online purchasing, or making purchasing decisions before entering a physical store. We're not talking about a grand visual experience, or a masterpeice of literature here, or any other such thing which would allow arguments about freedom of speach, or expression. 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. So we're talking about target conciously discriminating against a portion of the populace from purchasing goods from their store, or finding information about their products, so they could have the perception of saving money, by not having to hire competant web developers. This is not a freedom of choice issue. It's an issue of choosing the illusion of money, over people. And as we can see now, it was a bad choice, not only because the money they could have spent on accessiblity will now be spent on lawyers, but they also lost the potential money from those lost customers. The money they choose truly was illusory. *** 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
-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] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target 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 agree with you. In fact my first thought/viseral reaction was this is a bad thing. Strong arming merchants with the legal system only means a bunch of red tape and higher prices across the board. It can get even worse if lobbyist get involved. Loop holes, delays and stall tactics and even a potential to set progress back further. The legal system isn't the best arena for this battle. Education is the key. And when that fails playing to the self serving nature of business often works. I suspect that this lawsuit was premature. As the market demand for accessible sites grow so will the supply. That is the nature of business. Technology is already catching up with better screen readers etc. which will mean more opportunity for the blind/colour blind/mobility impaired/hearing impaired to actually *BE ONLINE*. More users create more demand creating more supply. Instead, now we'll have less tech savvy judges making half informed or emotionally skewed decisions. For example: If this judge just told Target to become accessible to all, Target has the resources to meet just about every accessibility issue you can encounter. But if this judge's decision becomes du jour, Mom and Pop sites which depend on so much open source or free technologies may well find it difficult to meet the requirements of law. You cannot discount Mom and Pops nor the impact the law has on them and their bottom lines. And the impact of their success on local economies. Anyway... I am new here :-D. I came here to learn how to implement accessible guidelines so that I can in turn get my clients (mostly small budget startups) to buy into the need for *some* amount of accessibility in their sites. I'm hoping greater knowledge on my part leads to efficient coding which will equal lowered costs for implementing accessible code for my clients. I'm glad I found this group! 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
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. 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. 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. 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. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Genesis One And One Sent: 04 October 2007 02:23 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target 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 agree with you. In fact my first thought/viseral reaction was this is a bad thing. Strong arming merchants with the legal system only means a bunch of red tape and higher prices across the board. It can get even worse if lobbyist get involved. Loop holes, delays and stall tactics and even a potential to set progress back further. The legal system isn't the best arena for this battle. Education is the key. And when that fails playing to the self serving nature of business often works. I suspect that this lawsuit was premature. As the market demand for accessible sites grow so will the supply. That is the nature of business. Technology is already catching up with better screen readers etc. which will mean more opportunity for the blind/colour blind/mobility impaired/hearing impaired to actually *BE ONLINE*. More users create more demand creating more supply. Instead, now we'll have less tech savvy judges making half informed or emotionally skewed decisions. For example: If this judge just told Target to become accessible to all, Target has the resources to meet just about every accessibility issue you can encounter. But if this judge's decision becomes du jour, Mom and Pop sites which depend on so much open source or free technologies may well find it difficult to meet the requirements of law. You cannot discount Mom and Pops nor the impact the law has on them and their bottom lines. And the impact of their success on local economies. Anyway... I am new here :-D. I came here to learn how to implement accessible guidelines so that I can in turn get my clients (mostly small budget startups) to buy into the need for *some* amount of accessibility in their sites. I'm hoping greater knowledge on my part leads to efficient coding which will equal lowered costs for implementing accessible code for my clients. I'm glad I found this group! 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] *** *** 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 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] wrote: 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. Do they have that right? Are you sure? If they had a sign out front their store that said No short people allowed would you argue for their right to make that decision? If a blind person showed up to their store, and the staff decided to not give that person the right change, would you argue that it's the blind person's fault for being stupid enough to try to buy from target in the first place? 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? You draw it at the company that you do reasonably expect to have a website that works. A company that obviously has the resources to make their website accessable, but conciously decided to exclude a particular segment of the population out of ignorance. 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? If you have enough resources that making your website accessable to disabled is trivial, you should absolutely make that investment. To do otherwise is simply discrimination. To compare it to a business that obviously doesn't have those resources, and couldn't reasonably be expected to do so, you are making a flawed argument, with a flawed comparison. *** 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
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 In Australia, for example, web accessibility hinges on the Disability Act of 1992 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/ The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** 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 10/4/07, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Do they have that right? Are you sure? If they had a sign out front their store that said No short people allowed would you argue for their right to make that decision? If a blind person showed up to their store, and the staff decided to not give that person the right change, would you argue that it's the blind person's fault for being stupid enough to try to buy from target in the first place? Giving the incorrect change to somebody has got nothing to do with the whole discussion. We are not talking about ripping people off, we are talking about the kind of services they choose to provide to their customers and the ones they don't. There is also a difference between discriminating people by telling a select group of people that they are not allowed to enter the store in comparison to providing the ability to enter the store. Should every store in the world be forced to provide a ramp for wheelchair access? No. Is it logical to do so for the large stores that serve thousands of people every day? Yes. But just because it is a logical thing to do doesn't mean they should be forced to do it. If they don't do it, they lose money. End of story. 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? You draw it at the company that you do reasonably expect to have a website that works. You can't treat company's different before the law just because one is making more money than the other. Now THAT would be discrimination. *** 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'm with Chris on this one. 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. It has NOTHING to do with cost or anything else. Those arguements do not even enter the picture. 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. Oh how we need SR/HR 25 Too much said already. Not sure this is a Web Standards topic any longer Jim Davies *** 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 10/3/07, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should every store in the world be forced to provide a ramp for wheelchair access? No. Is it logical to do so for the large stores that serve thousands of people every day? Yes. But just because it is a logical thing to do doesn't mean they should be forced to do it. If they don't do it, they lose money. End of story. If companies were really regulated that way, most of them would not have wheelchair access. Just look at other countries that don't have similar laws. People have to be carried up the stairs. 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? You draw it at the company that you do reasonably expect to have a website that works. You can't treat company's different before the law just because one is making more money than the other. Now THAT would be discrimination. Companies (or, corporations) are not people. They are separate legal entities and therefore are subject to different treatment. You cannot compare one legal entity (a corporation) to another (a blind person). Not even the letter of the law does so. Companies get treated differently all the time. What might apply to one company won't apply to the next because one is huge and bordering on monopoly and the other is small and barely making a dent in its market. There is no bill of rights for companies, just legal precedents that influence what happens down the line based on what has been decided in the courts before. We always complain about people making peanut-gallery comments on the business blogs when they know nothing about the technology behind websites. Well, I'm complaining about the people making peanut-gallery comments on this list who know nothing about business or law. Make the arguments you want based on your opinions, but don't make things up. -- -- 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 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
I'm inclined to side with legally enforceable web accessibility - putting a regulatory burden on big business won't impact on their profits, and if they have any sense they will put the work to 'good corporate citizen image' use. They'll pass the costs on to the consumer in any case. It's probably a more efficient strategy for the society overall than taxing citizens harder and attempting to cater for the disabled through government channels. The 'hands off private business' approach is naïve and doesn't take account of the social good. A society whose values consist of self-interest at all levels will rapidly descend into dysfunction on many other fronts, and those very companies will be much worse off. There's a spinoff benefit to ensuring web accessibility in any case surely -if compulsory, it would inevitably contribute to a culture where a company's website needs are well-resourced and noticed by management. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Davies Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 1:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard I'm with Chris on this one. 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. It has NOTHING to do with cost or anything else. Those arguements do not even enter the picture. 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. Oh how we need SR/HR 25 Too much said already. Not sure this is a Web Standards topic any longer Jim Davies *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1880 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
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 01:15:18 pm Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: ... to providing the ability to enter the store. Should every store in the world be forced to provide a ramp for wheelchair access? No. Sorry, but this is wrong. This is the exact reason for disability legislation, every store should have wheelchair access. It may be difficult and incur a cost but in our democratic countries we elect politicians to make sure that people with disabilities have access to infrastructure, public and private commercial places. 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. As one other repondant noted, the Internet has opened up a whole new world to people with disabilities, not just people with visual impairments. The delivery method makes the Internet much more accessible and the protocols used for delivery allow for the delivery of content without discrimination. Someone asked for a car analogy, so to me it is like anti-pollution legislation. Does it cost more to reduce harmful emissions from cars? Yes. Can a car manufacturer ignore this legislation because it costs more? No. Anti-discrimination legislation is the same, it is about protecting sections of our community from being excluded because it costs more. -- Regards, Steve Bathurst Computer Solutions *** 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
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. Not every website or even company is run by a large corporation ... not everyone has lots of cash to spend on lawyers... Opening the door to yet more lawsuits may be promoting another form or discrimination which is not often talked about but just as bad as any other - discrimation against people who can't afford lawyers! What is actually needed here is education ... so that the people at Target understand that it is also in their own interest that everyone can use their site properly. If people can't use their site they can't buy anything ... Excluding people from being able to use the site means less customers ... could it be put in a simpler way than that? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
