Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Hello... only just weighing into the chat and I haven't read all of the posts, but I'm a little disturbed that you haven't been responded to Kepler... so I'll step up and continue a moral debate. (or is that not ok, because standards aren't about morals) This stuff on a commercial level usually comes down to project budgets and I think only legal presidents will force clients to be prepared to pay higher prices for their websites to ensure that they comply. Isn't this more work for us and a bigger slice of the project budget pie?? Isn't it an opportunity? Web development professionalism should be more than W3C standards and search engine optimization. I think that promoting ourselves as premium services should include accessibility compliance. Isn't it only a matter of time before accessibility as a specialisation sky rockets in demand? Am I just giving away good idea's again? I'll admit right up that I'm not prepared and fully trained up on accessibility issues, but I think the issue is more important than my professional insecurities and I'll keep it on my must do list. Won't all happen over night - but it will happen eventually. And that is a good thing. Certainly the net generation will be more appreciative when their living longer bodies start to age. :] Melissa. John 'Max' Maxwell wrote: Kepler Gelotte wrote: Max aka The Pig Farmer - fighting for the spiral stair case ... Being a wheelchair user myself, I find your statements to be offensive at a personal level and misguided at a professional level. I don't think adding alternate ways of navigating a web site will encroach on your art. If you feel you can't add the appropriate WCAG modifications to your site without stifling your creativity, why not add an alternate link to accessible (artistically ugly) pages? Hopefully we learned from the Jim Crow laws that we can't segregate an entire segment of the population and call ourselves a Democratic Society. Regards, Kepler Gelotte (one of the 'peasants') *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** excellent - there's always one - and thank you for identifying yourself. You clearly exposed me as an individual who actually is fighting for spiral staircases and disrespects all forms of democracy, no no - it wasn't a joke - you're quite justified don't worry - I can only help that my platform provided you with a satisfactory position from where to correct me. Misguided? I'll take my chances there - to be honest - going to war in Iraq with a 50 year old weapon was misguided, but I survived that. But offensive? If you can honestly tell me that you as an individual were offended by my humour then I can only wholeheartedly apologise as it is something I do not take any pleasure in and until tonight had managed to avoid. All of my websites these days are valid, clearly constructed and encourage access by all members of society using all variations of hardware and software. Regards. *** 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: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Ok... sorry! I should have read all the posts... there was a reply... *blush*... :] M. Melissa Cooper wrote: Hello... only just weighing into the chat and I haven't read all of the posts, but I'm a little disturbed that you haven't been responded to Kepler... so I'll step up and continue a moral debate. (or is that not ok, because standards aren't about morals) This stuff on a commercial level usually comes down to project budgets and I think only legal presidents will force clients to be prepared to pay higher prices for their websites to ensure that they comply. Isn't this more work for us and a bigger slice of the project budget pie?? Isn't it an opportunity? Web development professionalism should be more than W3C standards and search engine optimization. I think that promoting ourselves as premium services should include accessibility compliance. Isn't it only a matter of time before accessibility as a specialisation sky rockets in demand? Am I just giving away good idea's again? I'll admit right up that I'm not prepared and fully trained up on accessibility issues, but I think the issue is more important than my professional insecurities and I'll keep it on my must do list. Won't all happen over night - but it will happen eventually. And that is a good thing. Certainly the net generation will be more appreciative when their living longer bodies start to age. :] Melissa. John 'Max' Maxwell wrote: Kepler Gelotte wrote: Max aka The Pig Farmer - fighting for the spiral stair case ... Being a wheelchair user myself, I find your statements to be offensive at a personal level and misguided at a professional level. I don't think adding alternate ways of navigating a web site will encroach on your art. If you feel you can't add the appropriate WCAG modifications to your site without stifling your creativity, why not add an alternate link to accessible (artistically ugly) pages? Hopefully we learned from the Jim Crow laws that we can't segregate an entire segment of the population and call ourselves a Democratic Society. Regards, Kepler Gelotte (one of the 'peasants') *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** excellent - there's always one - and thank you for identifying yourself. You clearly exposed me as an individual who actually is fighting for spiral staircases and disrespects all forms of democracy, no no - it wasn't a joke - you're quite justified don't worry - I can only help that my platform provided you with a satisfactory position from where to correct me. Misguided? I'll take my chances there - to be honest - going to war in Iraq with a 50 year old weapon was misguided, but I survived that. But offensive? If you can honestly tell me that you as an individual were offended by my humour then I can only wholeheartedly apologise as it is something I do not take any pleasure in and until tonight had managed to avoid. All of my websites these days are valid, clearly constructed and encourage access by all members of society using all variations of hardware and software. Regards. *** 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: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Ok... sorry! I should have read all the posts... there was a reply... *blush*... :] No reason to blush. Your point is well taken. Sometimes we need a little monetary incentive to do the right thing. Regards, Kepler *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Dear Melsiss and Kepler, I note your Aussie email address Melissa, you could help me harrass the Australian Government Information Management Office. UK standards are higher than Australian or USA sites. UK government pages have fewer HTML errors and more accessibility features. The Royal National Institute of the Blind, RNIB in the UK are advocates for legal compliance with UK Discrimination Laws. In Australia, Vision Australia does not have the same focus of advocacy as RNIB, they are a commercial company and do not advocate legal compliance. Make a complaint under the 1992 Discrimination Act and see how far you get. I did make complaint to Human Resources and Equal Opportunity HREOC under the 1992 Act that I was denied keyboard access by the Centrelink site. I got nowhere and HREOC were lied to by AGIMO that their site was close enough. In Australia the precedent case is Maguire v Sydney Olympics, a clear win for Maguire, however there has been no follow up cases or complaints since as far as I know. The apathy and denial of the Australian government to W3C standards and accessibility can be seen in the awards to government website as excellent, when the have many HTML errors and are inaccessible. http://www.hereticpress.com/Editorials/Editorial06.html#awards Long live the proletariat. If Target are found liable for discrimination it will be a great thing for many Americans who will get easier access to services they have been denied. Tim On 10/09/2006, at 1:18 PM, Melissa Cooper wrote: only legal presidents The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
The US National Federation of the Blind brought the case which is allowed to proceed to court. Traget applied to have the application dismissed. Target's amazing comment! We believe our Web site complies with all applicable laws and are committed to vigorously defending this case. We will continue to implement technology that increases the usability of our Web site for all our guests, including those with disabilities. http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=134144 The errors are so obvious but target denies them. Tim On 10/09/2006, at 1:44 PM, Tim wrote: Dear Melsiss and Kepler, I note your Aussie email address Melissa, you could help me harrass the Australian Government Information Management Office. UK standards are higher than Australian or USA sites. UK government pages have fewer HTML errors and more accessibility features. The Royal National Institute of the Blind, RNIB in the UK are advocates for legal compliance with UK Discrimination Laws. In Australia, Vision Australia does not have the same focus of advocacy as RNIB, they are a commercial company and do not advocate legal compliance. Make a complaint under the 1992 Discrimination Act and see how far you get. I did make complaint to Human Resources and Equal Opportunity HREOC under the 1992 Act that I was denied keyboard access by the Centrelink site. I got nowhere and HREOC were lied to by AGIMO that their site was close enough. In Australia the precedent case is Maguire v Sydney Olympics, a clear win for Maguire, however there has been no follow up cases or complaints since as far as I know. The apathy and denial of the Australian government to W3C standards and accessibility can be seen in the awards to government website as excellent, when the have many HTML errors and are inaccessible. http://www.hereticpress.com/Editorials/Editorial06.html#awards Long live the proletariat. If Target are found liable for discrimination it will be a great thing for many Americans who will get easier access to services they have been denied. Tim On 10/09/2006, at 1:18 PM, Melissa Cooper wrote: only legal presidents The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Hi, you took the words out of my mouth Melissa :] Web development professionalism should be more than W3C standards and search engine optimization. I think that promoting ourselves as premium services should include accessibility compliance. Isn't it only a matter of time before accessibility as a specialisation sky rockets in demand? Am I just giving away good idea's again? I'll admit right up that I'm not prepared and fully trained up on accessibility issues, but I think the issue is more important than my professional insecurities and I'll keep it on my must do list. Won't all happen over night - but it will happen eventually. And that is a good thing. couldnt have said it better myself... Im quite sure accessibility as a specification will come in to play... I want to make sure im ready :) Kind Regards, Jamie Cooper Quoting Melissa Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello... only just weighing into the chat and I haven't read all of the posts, but I'm a little disturbed that you haven't been responded to Kepler... so I'll step up and continue a moral debate. (or is that not ok, because standards aren't about morals) This stuff on a commercial level usually comes down to project budgets and I think only legal presidents will force clients to be prepared to pay higher prices for their websites to ensure that they comply. Isn't this more work for us and a bigger slice of the project budget pie?? Isn't it an opportunity? Web development professionalism should be more than W3C standards and search engine optimization. I think that promoting ourselves as premium services should include accessibility compliance. Isn't it only a matter of time before accessibility as a specialisation sky rockets in demand? Am I just giving away good idea's again? I'll admit right up that I'm not prepared and fully trained up on accessibility issues, but I think the issue is more important than my professional insecurities and I'll keep it on my must do list. Won't all happen over night - but it will happen eventually. And that is a good thing. Certainly the net generation will be more appreciative when their living longer bodies start to age. :] Melissa. John 'Max' Maxwell wrote: Kepler Gelotte wrote: Max aka The Pig Farmer - fighting for the spiral stair case ... Being a wheelchair user myself, I find your statements to be offensive at a personal level and misguided at a professional level. I don't think adding alternate ways of navigating a web site will encroach on your art. If you feel you can't add the appropriate WCAG modifications to your site without stifling your creativity, why not add an alternate link to accessible (artistically ugly) pages? Hopefully we learned from the Jim Crow laws that we can't segregate an entire segment of the population and call ourselves a Democratic Society. Regards, Kepler Gelotte (one of the 'peasants') *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** excellent - there's always one - and thank you for identifying yourself. You clearly exposed me as an individual who actually is fighting for spiral staircases and disrespects all forms of democracy, no no - it wasn't a joke - you're quite justified don't worry - I can only help that my platform provided you with a satisfactory position from where to correct me. Misguided? I'll take my chances there - to be honest - going to war in Iraq with a 50 year old weapon was misguided, but I survived that. But offensive? If you can honestly tell me that you as an individual were offended by my humour then I can only wholeheartedly apologise as it is something I do not take any pleasure in and until tonight had managed to avoid. All of my websites these days are valid, clearly constructed and encourage access by all members of society using all variations of hardware and software. Regards. *** 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: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Fear not - I am close to securing 'Grade 2 Listed' status for my web sites as an area of outstanding natural beauty ... nothing is to be touched ... a wheelchair ramp or even the teeniest handrail or elevated plug socket would just destroy the ambience that is my art bloody peasants - can you imagine them in the Victoria and Albert The Monalisa - are you sure - but its just tooo small and then this one here is huge. Pardon step back?? no, no n - you need to fit a scroll wheel to the frame dear boy, so EVERYone can enjoy it you see. sorry. Max aka The Pig Farmer - fighting for the spiral stair case ... PS - You're wrong ... I haven't even started the wine yet ... oh dear. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Max aka The Pig Farmer - fighting for the spiral stair case ... Being a wheelchair user myself, I find your statements to be offensive at a personal level and misguided at a professional level. I don't think adding alternate ways of navigating a web site will encroach on your art. If you feel you can't add the appropriate WCAG modifications to your site without stifling your creativity, why not add an alternate link to accessible (artistically ugly) pages? Hopefully we learned from the Jim Crow laws that we can't segregate an entire segment of the population and call ourselves a Democratic Society. Regards, Kepler Gelotte (one of the 'peasants') *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Kepler Gelotte wrote: Max aka The Pig Farmer - fighting for the spiral stair case ... Being a wheelchair user myself, I find your statements to be offensive at a personal level and misguided at a professional level. I don't think adding alternate ways of navigating a web site will encroach on your art. If you feel you can't add the appropriate WCAG modifications to your site without stifling your creativity, why not add an alternate link to accessible (artistically ugly) pages? Hopefully we learned from the Jim Crow laws that we can't segregate an entire segment of the population and call ourselves a "Democratic Society". Regards, Kepler Gelotte (one of the 'peasants') *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** excellent - there's always one - and thank you for identifying yourself. You clearly exposed me as an individual who actually is fighting for spiral staircases and disrespects all forms of democracy, no no - it wasn't a joke - you're quite justified don't worry - I can only help that my platform provided you with a satisfactory position from where to correct me. Misguided? I'll take my chances there - to be honest - going to war in Iraq with a 50 year old weapon was misguided, but I survived that. But offensive? If you can honestly tell me that you as an individual were offended by my humour then I can only wholeheartedly apologise as it is something I do not take any pleasure in and until tonight had managed to avoid. All of my websites these days are valid, clearly constructed and encourage access by all members of society using all variations of hardware and software. Regards. ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Interesting. I work for a/the local newspaper company and it would be hell to try and make everything accessible... so many different departments doing different things to the site - not to mention the old-school programmers that could care less about accessibility. Also, all of the third-party scripts we have going would make any type standards upgrade nearly impossible. I would hate to own an e-commerce company that was in the same boat as above... If that ruling passes, I would like to see some sort of grandfather clause, or at least some sort of grace period. I would imagine this would only apply to big-name e-commerce sites? ...Personal and/or small-business sites too? I know that a lot of folks use e-commerce apps/scripts which are far from being accessible. Can anyone name one app/script that does? Am I missing the point here? Cheers, Micky -- Wishlist: http://snipurl.com/vrs9 Switch: http://browsehappy.com/ My: http://del.icio.us/mhulse *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Hi Micky You need to show good faith effort to make your site accessible. Target was warned 6 months prior to the initial filing that they had significant problems and suggestions were given to fix them. The Target site did not make it difficult to use, it made it impossible for a blind person to purchase and get online-only discounts. Those are the two issues, are you making a good faith effort and are you providing services to everyone regardless of ability. If your newspaper can show that they've made an honest effort to fix accessibility issues, they should be safe. Those basic steps would include adding alternate text to images and making sure your only navigational elements are not hidden behind javascript, flash, and/or image based without alt attributes. If your paper is still suffering from these elements, it's your duty as a professional web developer to make the adjustments. It will also provide your paper with better search engine results. Ted http://www.last-child.com -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Micky Hulse ... I work for a/the local newspaper company and it would be hell to try and make everything accessible... so many different departments doing different things to the site - not to mention the old-school programmers that could care less about accessibility. Also, all of the third-party scripts we have going would make any type standards upgrade nearly impossible. I would hate to own an e-commerce company that was in the same boat as above... If that ruling passes, I would like to see some sort of grandfather clause, or at least some sort of grace period. ... Am I missing the point here? Cheers, Micky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
A review of the Target website with screenshots, it still has 556 HTML errors one year later and blank space everywhere. Wal-Mart and many other American sites need a kick in the behind as well. http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html#targetstore Tim On 09/09/2006, at 9:09 AM, Ted Drake wrote: Hi Micky You need to show good faith effort to make your site accessible. Target was warned 6 months prior to the initial filing that they had significant problems and suggestions were given to fix them. The Target site did not make it difficult to use, it made it impossible for a blind person to purchase and get online-only discounts. Those are the two issues, are you making a good faith effort and are you providing services to everyone regardless of ability. If your newspaper can show that they've made an honest effort to fix accessibility issues, they should be safe. Those basic steps would include adding alternate text to images and making sure your only navigational elements are not hidden behind javascript, flash, and/or image based without alt attributes. If your paper is still suffering from these elements, it's your duty as a professional web developer to make the adjustments. It will also provide your paper with better search engine results. Ted http://www.last-child.com -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Micky Hulse ... I work for a/the local newspaper company and it would be hell to try and make everything accessible... so many different departments doing different things to the site - not to mention the old-school programmers that could care less about accessibility. Also, all of the third-party scripts we have going would make any type standards upgrade nearly impossible. I would hate to own an e-commerce company that was in the same boat as above... If that ruling passes, I would like to see some sort of grandfather clause, or at least some sort of grace period. ... Am I missing the point here? Cheers, Micky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Hi Russ and Ted, many many many thanks for all the great tips, info and advice! russ - maxdesign wrote: - Does the site offer users a clear and easy-to-find method of contacting you (like an email address or more importantly a phone number) should all else fail? - Are alt attributes used for all descriptive images? - Does the site work with JavaScript disabled? - Does the site work with images disabled? - Does the site use visible skip menus to allow users to jump over large areas of content? - Is there sufficient colour brightness/contrasts? - Is colour alone used for critical information? - Are all links descriptive (for blind users)? - Does the site use well structured code such as heading levels to make it easier for assistive devices? - Does the site use accessible forms? - Does the site use accessible tables? Great checklist, I will forward it to my manager. Trust me, I would love to do a re-build of the whole site... but too many managers and departments and red tape for me (a very part-time Web Content Editor) to tackle. :( Thanks again Russ/Ted, I completely agree with the info/tips/advice you have given. I will confer with my boss soon and chat about these issues. Cheers, Micky -- Wishlist: http://snipurl.com/vrs9 Switch: http://browsehappy.com/ My: http://del.icio.us/mhulse *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Target.com case moves forward
Tim wrote: A review of the Target website with screenshots, it still has 556 HTML errors one year later and blank space everywhere. Wal-Mart and many other American sites need a kick in the behind as well. http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html#targetstore Ah, very interesting. I would have expected these sites to be on top of the latest web-design trends. Kinda reminds me of Disney site... it is strange how they reverted back to oldschool coding standards. http://disneystore-shopping.disney.co.uk/ Sidenote: Never get a Target credit card! If you are late on one payment watch-out for 30% interest rates! -- Wishlist: http://snipurl.com/vrs9 Switch: http://browsehappy.com/ My: http://del.icio.us/mhulse *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
