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 ar

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 o

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

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

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 O

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

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. A

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

Karl Lurman wrote: Frankly, Target didn't break any *existing* law, Well that's a matter of opinion (preferably a matter of legal opinion). 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/archi

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 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 gov

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

Sure Target should make a website to some kind of accessibility standard. They should, but that doesn't mean that if they don't, I should be able to sue them - good ol American style. Instead, I should just take my custom to a website that I CAN use with my copy of Jaws (or whatever the "standard"

RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

> Not every website or even company is run by a large corporation ... not > everyone has lots of cash to spend on lawyers... You can be sued for lot's of reasons. Laws are in place to protect people. You break them, you run the risk of getting sued. >From Title III of the Americans with Disabi

Re: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

> 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. Why didn't you just say this at the

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

So you reckon that businesses should have all the rights of a person, but none of the responsibilities? On 10/4/07, Jim Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm with Chris on this one. > Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government entity > should be telling a private busin

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

One thing most people are missing is that with HTML1.0 the www was accessible to a screenreader, there was no images, no tables etc. The only way to make it inaccessible to any members of the community was badly written or organised content. Since that time a bunch of new features have been added

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.

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

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 probab

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 t

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.

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?

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 19

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 PROTE

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

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/

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 th

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 s

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 struct

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

RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

*** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** __ NOD32 2570 (20071003) Informatio

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 corporation

RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

There are a couple important points about the Target law suit. 1. Blind people were blocked from accessing online-only coupons and sale items. They couldn't get these discounts at their local stores. 2. Target was notified of the problems and given suggestions on how to fix them. Many of them were

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, j

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 P

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 man

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 discrimin

Re: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

On 2007/10/03 16:18 (GMT-0600) Chris Wilson apparently typed: > 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. It is the job of courts to determi

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 (elevato

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: >>

Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

Something which is very important to consider when thinking about Malkin's comments and this court case, is that Target stores (an most other physical stores) are near completely inaccessible to the blind. These comments are from Neil Jarvis, a spokesperson on accessibility and a completely bli

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

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 PROTE

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

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] [ma

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 suppo

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

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. "

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 accesa

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/g

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 kicks in. I

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 Amer

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.

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 A

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 n

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 t

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 > > > > ***

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 C

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 O

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 con

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:/

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 wilfu

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

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

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.

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 everes

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 p

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

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

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. **

A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard

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

Re: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

Thanks folks! -- Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstanda

Re: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

See also, http://www.jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm -- Stuart Foulstone. http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk BigEasy Web Design 69 Flockton Court Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB Tel. 07751 413451 On Wed, October 3, 2007 6:16 pm, Dave Woods wrote: > Hi, > > Are these what you're after? > > http://w

RE: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html contains a checklist. This page links to others that explain the individual checkpoints in more (but not necessarily adequate) detail. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12#Web Checkpoints a. to k. correspond directly to WCAG

Re: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

Hi, Are these what you're after? http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12 Thanks Dave On 03/10/2007, Tom Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi listers, > > Does anyone have a reference (link) to a site that actually spells out > what

Re: [WSG] Re: WSG Digest

On 9/30/07, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First, change this: > > > > to this: > > > ISO-8859-1 is a valid charset, why is that change necessary. It is also important that people report the charset they are actually using. Many beginning authors just change the meta content type (o

[WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

Hi listers, Does anyone have a reference (link) to a site that actually spells out what criteria must be met for the levels of WCAG and 508 compliance. Can't seem to come up with quite what I am after from Google... Thanks a lot in advance. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | M

[WSG] Target class action

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 *** List Guid