[WSG] Target class action

2007-10-03 Thread Andrew Maben

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 Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

2007-10-03 Thread Tom Livingston
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 | Media Logic |
ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

2007-10-03 Thread Steve Green
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=ContentID=12#Web

Checkpoints a. to k. correspond directly to WCAG Priority 1 checkpoints.
Checkpoints l. to p. are similar to some WCAG checkpoints but they do not
correspond directly. The reason they have been written differently is that
Section 508 has legal status so they wanted the checkpoints to be as
objective as possible so there is no ambiguity as to whether they are met or
not.

Steve

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom Livingston
Sent: 03 October 2007 18:03
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [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 | Media Logic |
ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.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: [WSG] Re: WSG Digest

2007-10-03 Thread Devi Web Development
On 9/30/07, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 First, change this:

 meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/xml; charset=ISO-8859-1 /

 to this:

 meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/xml; charset=utf-8 /



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 (or even the HTTP
content type) without actually changing the charset they are using.

---
Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
Devi Web Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

2007-10-03 Thread Dave Woods
Hi,

Are these what you're after?

http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContentID=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 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 | Media Logic |
 ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.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: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

2007-10-03 Thread Stuart Foulstone
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://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
 http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContentID=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 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 | Media Logic |
 ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.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: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance

2007-10-03 Thread Tom Livingston
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://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



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

2007-10-03 Thread Julie Romanowski
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]
***



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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-03 Thread Joe Ortenzi

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

2007-10-03 Thread Cat Lee
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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-03 Thread russ - maxdesign
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

2007-10-03 Thread Joe Ortenzi

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

2007-10-03 Thread Matthew Cruickshank

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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Joe 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?


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

2007-10-03 Thread Andrew Boyd
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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Mark Harris

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

2007-10-03 Thread Mike Brown

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

2007-10-03 Thread russ - maxdesign
 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

2007-10-03 Thread Mark Harris

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

2007-10-03 Thread Mike Brown


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

2007-10-03 Thread Mark Harris

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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-03 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
 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

2007-10-03 Thread Julie Romanowski
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

2007-10-03 Thread Stuart Foulstone


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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread russ - maxdesign
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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Ian Chamberlain
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

2007-10-03 Thread Dennis Lapcewich

 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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Stuart Foulstone

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

2007-10-03 Thread Julie Romanowski
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

2007-10-03 Thread Joseph Taylor

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

2007-10-03 Thread Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
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

2007-10-03 Thread Breton Slivka
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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Williams
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

2007-10-03 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-03 Thread Chris Wilson
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

2007-10-03 Thread Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
 -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

2007-10-03 Thread Genesis One And One



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

2007-10-03 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-10-03 Thread Breton Slivka
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

2007-10-03 Thread 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



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

2007-10-03 Thread Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
 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

2007-10-03 Thread Jim Davies
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

2007-10-03 Thread Christian Montoya
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]

2007-10-03 Thread Dow, Gina
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

2007-10-03 Thread Steve Olive
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

2007-10-03 Thread Michael MD
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]
***



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

2007-10-03 Thread Nick Cowie
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 and  since that time
these features have been implemented by web designers with out
understanding the implications.

Off my soapbox and look at the implications of the current court action.
1. The current argument before the court is does the Americans with
Disabilities Act cover websites. This is a fairly important precedent that
needs to be made/overturned (Southwest Airlines in 2002) because use of the
internet has become far more mainstream in the last few years.
2. Target made the decision to fight it on these grounds not the National
Federation for the Blind or it's member whose name is used because the way
the court system works in California
3. Like the SOCOG vs Maquire in Australia in 2000 are fighting it in court
because they think it is easier than to  fix their website. It cost SOCOG
and IBM roughly $500,000 in legal costs instead of less than $50,000 to fix
the site.
4. From what I have been told, the Target site is a bad implementation of
the Amazon e-commerce engine. If the result goes against Target, expect to
see an improved version all round.

If you Americans think the Disabilities Act is bad law then lobby your
congress/senate/big cheese to get it changed.

Me, I believe the internet is very liberating for people with disabilities
as the can interact just like everybody, until some lazy or ill-informed
web designer/developer stops them because the do not understand what they
are doing.




-- 
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

2007-10-03 Thread Breton Slivka
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 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]
 ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



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

2007-10-03 Thread William Donovan

 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 beginning Chris.

the argument gets lost too much in analogies that do not relate and the cause 
then gets diluted.

What can the judge do to help and for what benifit can examples like Target 
help us all out with.
Remember first people have to take notice of why is going on.

Gerry McGovern spreads a message of customer-centric design to web site 
information. making the site easier to access not just for the disable, can 
also enable a better customer experience for those that are able.

William


 Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
 
 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]
 ***


***
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

2007-10-03 Thread Kepler Gelotte

 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 Disabilities Act of 1990:

Under Title III, 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.


I suggest if you don't like the law write your congressman. 



***
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

2007-10-03 Thread Michael MD
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]
***



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

2007-10-03 Thread Matthew Cruickshank

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/archivefiles/000305.html  [link is safe for work]



.Matthew Cruickshank
http://docvert.org/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***