[WSG] Target class action
Judge allows class action against Target Web site: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4 This might advance the cause of standards and accessibility, one might hope... Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[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] ***
RE: [WSG] Levels of 508 compliance
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html contains a checklist. This page links to others that explain the individual checkpoints in more (but not necessarily adequate) detail. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=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
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
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
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
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
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
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I find it hard to believe I'm reading this in the WSG. The Target website is truly appalling - we use it to illustrate some the worst possible design practices when we run training sessions. It discriminates against anyone who has to use a non-graphical user agent (not just blind people), and this is particularly unacceptable because it doesn't need to be that way. There's nothing about the content that requires the disgusting coding techniques they have used. If private companies were free to 'do whatever the hell they like' we would still have racial, religious, sex and disability discrimination to a far higher degree than we do now. Is there something special about websites that you think should exempt them from the laws that bind everything else? Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Steve _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson Sent: 03 October 2007 22:05 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
would love to but she won't let you comment unless you are logged in. free speech, eh? On Oct 3 2007, at 21:52, Julie Romanowski wrote: I don't know how many of you are familiar with Michelle Malkin. She posted about the Target lawsuit today, and although she is an intelligent woman, she doesn't have a clue when it comes to web accessibility. There also seems to be a lot of ignorance among the commenters and I would appreciate it if some our WSG members can help to set these people straight. Please visit Michelle Malkin's site and post your comments - http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/03/blind-shoppers-get-green-light- to-s ue-target-over-website/. Julie Romanowski Software Engineering - J2EE Engagement Team State Farm Insurance Company office: 309-735-5248 mobile: 309-532-4027 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Maybe I'm missing something here, but Mount Everest was not man-made. The Target site on the other hand ... Cat On 10/3/07, Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript of ever performance. That would of course be madness... Why should a different standard be applied to the web? On 10/3/07, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can only assume this is an attempt at trolling... Either that or phrases like the web is for everyone has fallen on deaf ears. Luckily, there are laws in many countries to stop companies and agencies doing whatever the hell the like when it comes to website and accessibility. Russ A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I think you'll find the people of Tibet didn't build Mount Everest and weren't even able to influence its design. Target chose to design their site the way they did, and a professional designer would have known that they were excluding some people from using the website. In the face of such wilful or ignorant behaviour I believe it is necessary to legislate. Sure it's inconvenient to have to worry about people with disabilities and incur additional costs to support them, but it's a mark of a civilised country that we do. At least where I live. Steve _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson Sent: 03 October 2007 22:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I can only assume this is an attempt at trolling... Either that or phrases like the web is for everyone has fallen on deaf ears. Luckily, there are laws in many countries to stop companies and agencies doing whatever the hell the like when it comes to website and accessibility. Russ A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
You make an easy error Chris. Contrary to popular belief, websites are NOT visual, there is a lot of text and code in there, placed by good website designers, to allow sight-poor people, as well as people who need the text to be large, or require high contrast text, etc, to read the site. SO the analogy of a car is not valid. Sight-disabled people can have websites read to them by software on their computer. So they have a perfectly valid car for driving on the roads, since it can read for them. So if you put the road signs where they can't read them, and make the text too small and the same colour as the background, you are consciously preventing them from taking part in society. People with disabilities have software that can read the site to them and allow them to get the information or shop that store as well. If the design doesn't take this into account, and it is not difficult to do and actually makes the site a better site, easier to navigate and more search engine friendly and load quicker, then it negates them as a possible customer. Just like a newly built shop - if you don't put in easy wheelchair access you remove those people from your possible customer base. The GREAT thing about the internet is that is a useful tool for people who have difficulty getting round and is a useful tool to help them have a half-decent life. So when you build a new site, and design and code to acceptable web standards, then those people with sight or motion disabilities can shop too, because the designers took them into account when they were designing it. NOt EXTRA work, just different design. Your screw-them attitude smells of intolerance and forgets the fact that all men (people) are created equal and have equal rights to services and resources. And the funny thing is, it only takes intelligence, not extra money, to make it happen! On Oct 3 2007, at 22:04, Chris Wilson wrote: A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Chris Wilson wrote: Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript of ever performance. That would of course be madness... I'd like a car analogy next please. .Matthew Cruickshank http://docvert.org/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards and accesability, but not at this cost. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Yours? Mine? Certainly not a judge who likely has no concept of the situation or technology. Cases like this lead to red blooded legislation that takes far too long to fix, and even longer to repeal. On 10/3/07, Cat Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here, but Mount Everest was not man-made. The Target site on the other hand ... Cat On 10/3/07, Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
No but you DO have an escalator at your local shopping mall because not everyone finds the climb up the stairs easy. Or should we remove the escalators and elevators from shopping malls too because they CHOSE to go to that shopping mall didn't they? Can you please use logic and sense? On Oct 3 2007, at 22:50, Chris Wilson wrote: Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
My suggestion is that rather than cars it should have something to do with cats saying Can I haz agsessibillitee? :) Cheers, Andrew Andrew Boyd Consultant SMS Management Technology M 0413 048 542 T +61 2 6279 7100 F +61 2 6279 7101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] About SMS: Ground Floor, 8 Brindabella Circuit, CANBERRA AIRPORT ACT 2609 www.smsmt.com SMS Management Technology (SMS) [ASX:SMX] is Australia's largest, publicly listed Management Services company. We solve complex problems and transform business through Consulting, People and Technology From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Cruickshank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 8:14 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Chris Wilson wrote: Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript of ever performance. That would of course be madness... I'd like a car analogy next please. .Matthew Cruickshank http://docvert.org/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you received this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any information contained herein. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The Company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. Thank you for your cooperation. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Chris Wilson wrote: Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript of ever performance. That would of course be madness... No, not madness. Instead, it would be a good way to bring art to audiences that might not otherwise know it. Why should a different standard be applied to the web? It's not different, anymore than wheelchair ramps outside buildings are different. I'm not in a wheelchair, but I often use the ramp in preference to the steps as my left knee is pretty screwed and sometimes doesn't bend like it should. As the internet (which is more than the web, remember) becomes not only ubiquitous but required to function in the modern world, barriers such as inaccessible websites do truly pose a problem for those who operate differently. They can't choose to use a different website if the company at issue is the only purveyor of the product or service that they need. However, if it _is_ different, then we should apply it because we can, because it's the right thing to do and because a commercial site open to more users will generate more sales, just by the law of averages. mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Chris Wilson wrote: A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. Thoughts like this really belong in the comments section of the article. They could join such pearls of wisdom as: With all the companies selling their wares on the web, why don't the blind just move on (no pun intended) to an organization that caters to their needs? I'm waiting for a blind man to sue Playboy or Hustler magazine for 'equal access' I wondered if an Iraqi war veteran who lost his sight in combat joins the class action suit would that cause the judge to reverse herself (she might implode if she had to rule in favor of a soldier)? But then I realized that the hypothetical wasn't realistic because no one brave enough to serve America in war could ever be so stupid as to associate with this moron class action. [Mike - yup, not only disabled, but stupid *and* unpatriotic.] As a part-time website developer I need to point out a couple of things that need to be understood on this matter. First of all ... Although I can fully understand the problems of accessing websites for those with eyesight problems this type of need is normally taken care of with software the individual purchases and installs on their own computer ... not by the website itself ... Secondly ... to carry this a step further ... to be fully compliant the software at the website end would be required to be able to translate and verbalize the text into every spoken language on the face of the earth ... not just the language in which the text was written bty the website owners ... fail to do that and you would face never-ending lawsuits from people that didn't speak English or whatever the native language of the website ... [Mike - see, the problem is this guy is only a part-time web developer. If he was full-time, he'd totally have time and be able to solve the verbalise the text into every spoken language problem.] The fall of Rome was accomplished largely by similar politically correct social miscreants. [Mike - this last one is my favourite. Maybe Al Qaeda is behind the lawsuit?] This article has totally made my day in the it's so bad all you can do is laugh mode. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Yours? Mine? There are clearly defined ideas of accessibility for most countries - such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Or Section 508 in the case of America: http://www.section508.gov/ In Australia, for example, web accessibility hinges on the Disability Act of 1992 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/ And is backed up by HEREOC's World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html#s3_3 In June 2000, the Online Council, representing the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments, agreed that the Worldwide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 will be the common best practice standard for all Australian government websites. All this will change soon when WCAG2 hits the stands :) Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Julie Romanowski wrote: I don't know how many of you are familiar with Michelle Malkin. She posted about the Target lawsuit today, and although she is an intelligent woman, she doesn't have a clue when it comes to web accessibility. Malkin doesn't have much of a clue, full stop. She is an American right-wing nut-bar, slightly less offensive than Ann Coulter. So are the people who regularly comment on her blog. There also seems to be a lot of ignorance among the commenters and I would appreciate it if some our WSG members can help to set these people straight. Pearls before swine, They don't WANT to see, because it might require them to do something that doesn't immediately put dollars in their pockets. Please visit Michelle Malkin's site and post your comments - http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/03/blind-shoppers-get-green-light-to-s ue-target-over-website/. hmmm... I can't help wondering if this is a troll in itself to get more people to visit the site and raise a controversy (sensible patriotic 'Merkins versus hippie scumbags!! Film at 11!). Probably not but that's the level of suspicion the left/right battle in the US draws from either side. mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
If you are going to argue for standards and accesability, follow your own advice first. Captain table layout over here. You don't even have alt tags on your images. Hypocritical aren't ya? Taking bets as to how long before Goodwin's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law kicks in. I figure Russ will shut things down before then, but otherwise, an hour at most? :) Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Andrew Boyd wrote: My suggestion is that rather than cars it should have something to do with cats saying Can I haz agsessibillitee? :) I'm in ur CMS, changing ur links *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
bigeasyweb.co.uk ? There is no reason why an accessible site should cause blindness. On 10/3/07, Stuart Foulstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:18 pm, Chris Wilson wrote: I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards and accesability... This is patently untrue. You have no concept of accessibility and the standards and why they exist. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. It's not required by the court - it's required by law. The court is just administering the legislation which has been enacted by national government to help bring about a fully democratic society. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Don't you even know this? See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for a clue. (aside) Regardless of accessibility issues, target.com is very bad site and full of coding errors. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry out financial transactions through it. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
No, not madness. Instead, it would be a good way to bring art to audiences that might not otherwise know it. Yes, but once you start applying that logic inside legislated rules of presentation and usage (which is the issue here, or will be), a site can no longer be the art the artist desires. However, if it _is_ different, then we should apply it because we can, because it's the right thing to do and because a commercial site open to more users will generate more sales, just by the law of averages. Yes, we should, laws shouldn't mandate it. When you take away the ability to choose the right path and instead force it on a person, that person looses the ability to be good as they never choose to do good, it's forced on them - yes? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Because it was explicitly designed to be accessible. And because it is relatively easy and the incremental cost is small. As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read Braille. However, many have a scanner that allows them to read printed material using OCR and a text-to-speech converter. The most useful alternatives are large-print versions and audio recordings, and many organisations will make their publications available in these formats on request. Have you actually looked at the coding on the Target website? I have, many times. The accessibility (and standards-compliance) could be improved dramatically at virtually no cost. One of the biggest problems is that nearly all the links are graphical but no 'alt' attributes have been provided. You try to navigate when JAWS reads link graphic six hundred twenty five million three hundred forty two thousand seven hundred ninety one. Where does that link point to? Damned if I know. And each page contains several hundred links like it. The secondary navigation might look like text but it isn't - it's a honking great image map. Want to resize the text? Sorry, can't do that. Semantic structure? Ha ha ha... You could understand if they just came out and said screw disabled people - we don't care, but instead they give us this garbage about how it's as accessible as possible and it meets all the guidelines and they really do care ever so much. They are not claiming the right to 'do whatever the hell they want' - they are trying to kid people that this is as good as it gets and that it can't be any better. And that is just so far from the truth. Steve _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson Sent: 03 October 2007 23:01 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript of ever performance. That would of course be madness... Why should a different standard be applied to the web? On 10/3/07, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can only assume this is an attempt at trolling... Either that or phrases like the web is for everyone has fallen on deaf ears. Luckily, there are laws in many countries to stop companies and agencies doing whatever the hell the like when it comes to website and accessibility. Russ A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy Copyrighted publications in the US are copied to Braille for the most part (with copyright holder's permission) by the Library of Congress. I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Mount Everest?! Please, get serious. If you're going to provide a comparison, use something logical. Your comparison is akin to comparing an apple to a hippopotamus. Not even close. Let's instead compare the brick-n-mortar Target stores with the web site. Are you against the law that requires access to their stores, ramps, parking spots, wider doors, restroom aids, etc. Where is the line drawn? Why did that law come to be? It is the result of the courts because businesses didn't do it on their own and had to be pushed. The ADA spoke for a minority. Businesses are notorious for doing the very least that they can until the law tells them otherwise. Notorious! It's all about numbers, money, and risk management. I despise lawsuits, but this one is for the greater good, and as has been proven in the past, necessary. It's hard enough living with a disability without the ignorant, the selfish, or the greedy making life harder. Target spent millions making their stores accessible. To make the site accessible is so much less. So much easier for them. And yet, left to command themselves, they did nothing. In fact, once asked to correct the issues the first time all they did was complain, try to justify their crappy site, and took little to no action. Choice? Cut off your legs and see how limited choice gets. The web is easy access for lots of people who have certain difficulties, even with full ADA compliance in a physical location. My cousin was a quadriplegic and she hardly went anywhere because it was a huge hassle doing anything. Give her a pointed stick, put it in her mouth, and place a computer in front of her, though, and she was free to roam and happy as a lark. She literally drooled over the experience! I can't see how any business or site can justify the failure to remove the barriers that would have blocked her access. I better stop now. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
No, not a troll. Someone sent me this link and the comments I read were disheartening. I don't know if it would make a difference, but I wanted to see if we could actually get some of these people to start thinking. Maybe it's a lost cause... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Harris Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:47 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Julie Romanowski wrote: I don't know how many of you are familiar with Michelle Malkin. She posted about the Target lawsuit today, and although she is an intelligent woman, she doesn't have a clue when it comes to web accessibility. Malkin doesn't have much of a clue, full stop. She is an American right-wing nut-bar, slightly less offensive than Ann Coulter. So are the people who regularly comment on her blog. There also seems to be a lot of ignorance among the commenters and I would appreciate it if some our WSG members can help to set these people straight. Pearls before swine, They don't WANT to see, because it might require them to do something that doesn't immediately put dollars in their pockets. Please visit Michelle Malkin's site and post your comments - http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/03/blind-shoppers-get-green-light-to -s ue-target-over-website/. hmmm... I can't help wondering if this is a troll in itself to get more people to visit the site and raise a controversy (sensible patriotic 'Merkins versus hippie scumbags!! Film at 11!). Probably not but that's the level of suspicion the left/right battle in the US draws from either side. mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:18 pm, Chris Wilson wrote: I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards and accesability... This is patently untrue. You have no concept of accessibility and the standards and why they exist. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. It's not required by the court - it's required by law. The court is just administering the legislation which has been enacted by national government to help bring about a fully democratic society. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Don't you even know this? See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for a clue. (aside) Regardless of accessibility issues, target.com is very bad site and full of coding errors. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry out financial transactions through it. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read Braille. How many web users are disabled to the point of using screen readers (anyone using it by choice not by necessity doesn't count, that's their own issue)? Probably not much more than that. But you don't advocate publishers being required to aid them do you? Doesn't sound like it. Because it was explicitly designed to be accessible. And because it is relatively easy and the incremental cost is small. As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read Braille. However, many have a scanner that allows them to read printed material using OCR and a text-to-speech converter. The most useful alternatives are large-print versions and audio recordings, and many organisations will make their publications available in these formats on request. Have you actually looked at the coding on the Target website? I have, many times. The accessibility (and standards-compliance) could be improved dramatically at virtually no cost. One of the biggest problems is that nearly all the links are graphical but no 'alt' attributes have been provided. You try to navigate when JAWS reads link graphic six hundred twenty five million three hundred forty two thousand seven hundred ninety one. Where does that link point to? Damned if I know. And each page contains several hundred links like it. The secondary navigation might look like text but it isn't - it's a honking great image map. Want to resize the text? Sorry, can't do that. Semantic structure? Ha ha ha... You could understand if they just came out and said screw disabled people - we don't care, but instead they give us this garbage about how it's as accessible as possible and it meets all the guidelines and they really do care ever so much. They are not claiming the right to 'do whatever the hell they want' - they are trying to kid people that this is as good as it gets and that it can't be any better. And that is just so far from the truth. Steve //* And here we have the overly emotional response that is exactly why we get such useless red blooded legislation. I know about being handicapped, but it doesn't color my logic as I can put the two aside, try it sometime. On 10/3/07, Mike at Green-Beast.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy Copyrighted publications in the US are copied to Braille for the most part (with copyright holder's permission) by the Library of Congress. I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Mount Everest?! Please, get serious. If you're going to provide a comparison, use something logical. Your comparison is akin to comparing an apple to a hippopotamus. Not even close. Let's instead compare the brick-n-mortar Target stores with the web site. Are you against the law that requires access to their stores, ramps, parking spots, wider doors, restroom aids, etc. Where is the line drawn? Why did that law come to be? It is the result of the courts because businesses didn't do it on their own and had to be pushed. The ADA spoke for a minority. Businesses are notorious for doing the very least that they can until the law tells them otherwise. Notorious! It's all about numbers, money, and risk management. I despise lawsuits, but this one is for the greater good, and as has been proven in the past, necessary. It's hard enough living with a disability without the ignorant, the selfish, or the greedy making life harder. Target spent millions making their stores accessible. To make the site accessible is so much less. So much easier for them. And yet, left to command themselves, they did nothing. In fact, once asked to correct the issues the first time all they did was complain, try to justify their crappy site, and took little to no action. Choice? Cut off your legs and see how limited choice gets. The web is easy access for lots of people who have certain difficulties, even with full ADA compliance in a physical location. My cousin was a quadriplegic and she hardly went anywhere because it was a huge hassle doing anything. Give her a pointed stick, put it in her mouth, and place a computer in front of her, though, and she was free to roam and happy as a lark. She literally drooled over the experience! I can't see how any business or site can justify the failure to remove the barriers that would have blocked her access. I better stop now. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard -ADMIN
ADMIN OK, lets keep this discussion civil and productive, people! Russ Admin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Oh, this mailing list has been stagnant for quite some time, needs a good argument if you ask me. :) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I must be having a stupid attack as I can't find anywhere on the site where I can register and then comment. As for the left / right - Accessibility/ Freedom agrument (it doesn't deserve to be called a debate) it leaves me with the feeling that I would not wish to be trapped in a lift (elevator) or even a medium sized country with most of these people. All that said; can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility costs money comes from? Agreed, updating an existing site may cost money, however creating a clean semantic and accessibile site can be done at the same price as a nasty old site and if we all take the semantic thing to heart who knows they should be less expensive than todays sites. The final puzzle is quite why Target are happy to spend more than they should simply to discriminate against a significant proportion of their potential market. Seems plain dumb to me. - Original Message - From: Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:47 PM Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Julie Romanowski wrote: I don't know how many of you are familiar with Michelle Malkin. She posted about the Target lawsuit today, and although she is an intelligent woman, she doesn't have a clue when it comes to web accessibility. Malkin doesn't have much of a clue, full stop. She is an American right-wing nut-bar, slightly less offensive than Ann Coulter. So are the people who regularly comment on her blog. There also seems to be a lot of ignorance among the commenters and I would appreciate it if some our WSG members can help to set these people straight. Pearls before swine, They don't WANT to see, because it might require them to do something that doesn't immediately put dollars in their pockets. Please visit Michelle Malkin's site and post your comments - http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/03/blind-shoppers-get-green-light-to-s ue-target-over-website/. hmmm... I can't help wondering if this is a troll in itself to get more people to visit the site and raise a controversy (sensible patriotic 'Merkins versus hippie scumbags!! Film at 11!). Probably not but that's the level of suspicion the left/right battle in the US draws from either side. mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. Your analogy makes no sense, unless you think the state should be required to grant a drivers license to Ray Charles. OTOH, vehicle manufacturers are required to follow various safety regulations, the purpose of which is not so much to protect the idiot driver from his own incompetence and stupidity, but to protect innocent people from the occasional incompetent and stupid driver. The Target lawsuit is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to Wikipedia, Title III of ADA says, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. Public accommodations include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things. In other words, it's illegal to discriminate against 20 percent of the US population (that's 60 million people) who have some sort of disability preventing them from enjoying public accommodation as anyone else. The lawsuit is arguing that public accommodation also applies to private (commercial) web sites, in addition to brick and mortar operations. If you truly are for accessibility, I'm sure you don't complain about the wheelchair ramps at crosswalks, the disability buttons at building entrances, and the extra-large private toilet blocks everywhere else, to name just a few. None of these features negatively impact the able-bodied person one bit. On the contrary, wheelchair ramps at crosswalks are seen to have hidden benefits for non-disabled people as well. All require considerable sums of money to install and maintain. Yet applying that same standard to web sites is not applicable here? Disability does not mean seclusion. In fact, disabled people wield considerable consumer buying power on their own, let alone influence others and their consumer spending. Or, put it this way. Considering Mac users account for a single digit percentage of all computers connected to the Internet, why even cater to them, let alone acknowledge their existence? If you believe that then here's hoping your life insurance is fully paid up. Mac influence with respect to the Internet, if not the greater world, is greatly disproportionate to their numbers, practically all of it for the better of all of us. Or do you firmly believe Zune beats iPod hands down? :) Web accessibility is not an addon issue. Web accessibility is not an additional expense. Web accessibility makes good business sense. Most importantly, web accessibility is the right thing to do. And the final twist is that everyone, *everyone,* who uses the Internet for whatever reason, will someday require accessible assistance when it comes to using the Internet. Dennis Lapcewich USDA Forest Service Webmaster Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360-891-5024 - Voice | 360-891-5045 - Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- Anonymous *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Those are all well and good, but utterly useless in a global marketplace. Should I be under your countries guidelines? Mine? What if I'm international? All of them? What if country As guidelines are incompatible with country Bs... Or should legislation hinge on guidelines proposed, created, and managed by a non government body (WSG)? You are all so quick to support legislation, but do you have any concept of how that would change the web, a concept not just of the accesability impact but the real impact? On 10/3/07, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Yours? Mine? There are clearly defined ideas of accessibility for most countries - such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Or Section 508 in the case of America: http://www.section508.gov/ In Australia, for example, web accessibility hinges on the Disability Act of 1992 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/ And is backed up by HEREOC's World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html#s3_3 In June 2000, the Online Council, representing the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments, agreed that the Worldwide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 will be the common best practice standard for all Australian government websites. All this will change soon when WCAG2 hits the stands :) Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
http://26bits.com/ An accessible site shouldn't make everyone think they've gone blind. On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:56 pm, Chris Wilson wrote: bigeasyweb.co.uk ? There is no reason why an accessible site should cause blindness. On 10/3/07, Stuart Foulstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:18 pm, Chris Wilson wrote: I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards and accesability... This is patently untrue. You have no concept of accessibility and the standards and why they exist. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. It's not required by the court - it's required by law. The court is just administering the legislation which has been enacted by national government to help bring about a fully democratic society. Which idea of accessability should be imposed? Don't you even know this? See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for a clue. (aside) Regardless of accessibility issues, target.com is very bad site and full of coding errors. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry out financial transactions through it. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Darn it! Sorry, people, it looks like comment registration is now closed (http://michellemalkin.com/terms-of-use/). Here's her contact email - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please be civil, ladies and gentlemen. We want to educate this woman, not heckle her. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Chamberlain Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:18 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard I must be having a stupid attack as I can't find anywhere on the site where I can register and then comment. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
To add to the colorful discussion... There is certainly merit behind being able to design a site the way you want. I've written private web applications where javascript was required - cookies too. In the public sphere, its a whole different story. Yes, you can choose to visit a website, just like you can choose to visit the local library. The library is required to offer some level of accessibility to disabled visitors. A website should do the same, especially in an instance where it is designed for the general public seeking public information. On the target suit, at a glance it does seem frivolous. Blind people shopping online does seem crazy since we tend to think of the web in such visual terms. In reality, the suit is a result of target's basic refusal to change the checkout process on the site so a screenreader or other device can checkout using the shopping system. If I remember correctly there were given a year if not more to do so and still didn't with the suit being the consequence. We all know that this would not be difficult to do. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design Phone: (609) 335-3076 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Green wrote: I think you'll find the people of Tibet didn't build Mount Everest and weren't even able to influence its design. Target chose to design their site the way they did, and a professional designer would have known that they were excluding some people from using the website. In the face of such wilful or ignorant behaviour I believe it is necessary to legislate. Sure it's inconvenient to have to worry about people with disabilities and incur additional costs to support them, but it's a mark of a civilised country that we do. At least where I live. Steve *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Chris Wilson *Sent:* 03 October 2007 22:51 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
What Target offer is an additional service to their clients. They don't have to offer a website, they just do it to make it easier for their customers (and of course to sell more products). If they are being sued for having an inaccessible website, they might as well turn around and take the site down. That doesn't help anybody. It's like suing your local gym for not turning on the volume of the TVs they've got hanging of their walls. They could do it, it's easy to do, it would make a small group of people happy, but they chose not to. That's the right of every private company: they can choose what services they offer and they can choose in what format those services come. If you do not like it, then you go and shop somewhere else. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Green Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 8:11 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard I think you'll find the people of Tibet didn't build Mount Everest and weren't even able to influence its design. Target chose to design their site the way they did, and a professional designer would have known that they were excluding some people from using the website. In the face of such wilful or ignorant behaviour I believe it is necessary to legislate. Sure it's inconvenient to have to worry about people with disabilities and incur additional costs to support them, but it's a mark of a civilised country that we do. At least where I live. Steve _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson Sent: 03 October 2007 22:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Or do you think that your right to 'do what the hell you like' outweighs other people's right to be treated equally? Be treated equally? They have to CHOOSE to visit the site. So, because they want (want need)to do something, others should accommodate? I want to visit the summit of mount everest... I suppose the people of tibet should install an escalator just so I can reach the top due to my less-then-perfect phisical status. Damn them for not allowing me to the summit, I'm going to sue. Idiocy. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** __ NOD32 2570 (20071003) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
These are some of the worst analogies I've ever seen. The target website is not a work of art, it's not a mountain, it's not a car, it's not a drive up ATM, it's not a building. Not to mention the slippery slopes, like Well if they force Target to fix their website, next they'll be forcing it on ALL websites everywhere! and Well if they force target to make their site accessable to blind people, what's next? People who can't speak english? It's amazing how much these things sound like arguments, and seem to make sense, but every one of them is a logical fallacy of some kind. What we are talking about here, is a Catalog of products, using a technology which is inherently easy to make accessable. It does not require a huge investment of material. The catalog in this case, is used for online purchasing, or making purchasing decisions before entering a physical store. We're not talking about a grand visual experience, or a masterpeice of literature here, or any other such thing which would allow arguments about freedom of speach, or expression. Target is a business, and they ain't in the business of making art. We are talking about a business that, despite one of the comments on that blog, HAS made a concious decision to exclude a portion of the populace from using their website. I know this because I've seen the reasoning before. Who cares about blind people? they're a small part of the population anyway. Let's just make the whole thing flash. So we're talking about target conciously discriminating against a portion of the populace from purchasing goods from their store, or finding information about their products, so they could have the perception of saving money, by not having to hire competant web developers. This is not a freedom of choice issue. It's an issue of choosing the illusion of money, over people. And as we can see now, it was a bad choice, not only because the money they could have spent on accessiblity will now be spent on lawyers, but they also lost the potential money from those lost customers. The money they choose truly was illusory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Perhaps the most amazing thing in all of this is Target¹s willingness to continue this fight into court. Aside from all the stunningly bad publicity of a major company standing up to fight a group of seemingly defenseless blind people, and the ridiculously poor example they set for all corporations by worrying more about form over function, is the sheer economic stupidity As almost anyone here in this group would tell you, the work required to make their site simply not offensive to the blind (e.g. just adding alt tags) would probably cost them a tiny fraction of the legal bills. I'm quite sure any of a number of people here would gladly help them accomplish that at their legal team's hourly rate :) Chris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility costs money comes from? It certainly can do depending on the content of your site and the target audience. I would concede that it probably doesn't cost more to produce a standards-compliant static website (i.e. has semantic structure and is valid HTML and CSS) but that is only the first step in making a website accessible. We've discussed many examples here, and I encounter them every day in our work. Obvious ones are the provision of captions, transcripts and audio descriptions for multimedia; that does not come cheap. It is not trivial to accommodate text resizing and screen widths ranging from less than 800px wide to upwards of 1600px while maintaining an acceptable layout. Especially so if someone else told you what the layout has to be. Converting artwork into accessible code takes more time than slicing and dicing a PhotoShop image. Making interactive content accessible (such as discovery-based e-learning applications) can be seriously challenging. And then there's the cost of maintaining the accessibility of a site on an ongoing basis when most CMSs don't enforce the creation of accessible content. Big sites might have many dozens of content authors, none of whom gives a monkeys about accessibility so you need periodic or ongoing testing and repair to prevent the accessibility from degrading. So yes, it often does cost more. These costs may well be offset to some extent by savings and other kinds of benefits but we need to be able to quantify this before we can make sweeping statements that it doesn't cost any more. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Chamberlain Sent: 04 October 2007 00:18 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard I must be having a stupid attack as I can't find anywhere on the site where I can register and then comment. As for the left / right - Accessibility/ Freedom agrument (it doesn't deserve to be called a debate) it leaves me with the feeling that I would not wish to be trapped in a lift (elevator) or even a medium sized country with most of these people. All that said; can anybody help me understand where the idea that accessibility costs money comes from? Agreed, updating an existing site may cost money, however creating a clean semantic and accessibile site can be done at the same price as a nasty old site and if we all take the semantic thing to heart who knows they should be less expensive than todays sites. The final puzzle is quite why Target are happy to spend more than they should simply to discriminate against a significant proportion of their potential market. Seems plain dumb to me. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Speaking of ' logical fallacy' On 10/3/07, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are some of the worst analogies I've ever seen. The target website is not a work of art, it's not a mountain, it's not a car, it's not a drive up ATM, it's not a building. Not to mention the slippery slopes, like Well if they force Target to fix their website, next they'll be forcing it on ALL websites everywhere! and Well if they force target to make their site accessable to blind people, what's next? People who can't speak english? It's amazing how much these things sound like arguments, and seem to make sense, but every one of them is a logical fallacy of some kind. What we are talking about here, is a Catalog of products, using a technology which is inherently easy to make accessable. It does not require a huge investment of material. The catalog in this case, is used for online purchasing, or making purchasing decisions before entering a physical store. We're not talking about a grand visual experience, or a masterpeice of literature here, or any other such thing which would allow arguments about freedom of speach, or expression. Target is a business, and they ain't in the business of making art. We are talking about a business that, despite one of the comments on that blog, HAS made a concious decision to exclude a portion of the populace from using their website. I know this because I've seen the reasoning before. Who cares about blind people? they're a small part of the population anyway. Let's just make the whole thing flash. So we're talking about target conciously discriminating against a portion of the populace from purchasing goods from their store, or finding information about their products, so they could have the perception of saving money, by not having to hire competant web developers. This is not a freedom of choice issue. It's an issue of choosing the illusion of money, over people. And as we can see now, it was a bad choice, not only because the money they could have spent on accessiblity will now be spent on lawyers, but they also lost the potential money from those lost customers. The money they choose truly was illusory. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Breton Slivka Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 10:34 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Target is a business, and they ain't in the business of making art. We are talking about a business that, despite one of the comments on that blog, HAS made a concious decision to exclude a portion of the populace from using their website. I know this because I've seen the reasoning before. Who cares about blind people? they're a small part of the population anyway. Let's just make the whole thing flash. Yes, they are a business. They are trying to make money. Like all of us. All of their decisions were conscious and based on the premise to make money: use flash for marketing purposes. Save money by getting in a crappy web development company. Save money by not targeting a select group of people. So what? Are you blaming them for running a business? We all have to make these kind of decisions: how do we save money, who are the customer groups we are trying to address... If you don't make those decisions you are a crappy business person and your business won't exist for very long. Whether their decisions were right or wrong in our eyes is not the point. They have got the right to make those decisions because they are a private company. Would anybody go and sue the local grocery store for having an inaccessible website? No. Because nobody would expect them to spend much time or money or effort into building a website that works. So where do you draw the line? If a company earns millions of dollars then they should suddenly have to be liable for making their websites accessible? But if the company only earns a few thousands of dollars then it's all fine? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
Chris Wilson wrote: I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards and accesability, but not at this cost. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. No you're point wasn't missed. I agree with you. In fact my first thought/viseral reaction was this is a bad thing. Strong arming merchants with the legal system only means a bunch of red tape and higher prices across the board. It can get even worse if lobbyist get involved. Loop holes, delays and stall tactics and even a potential to set progress back further. The legal system isn't the best arena for this battle. Education is the key. And when that fails playing to the self serving nature of business often works. I suspect that this lawsuit was premature. As the market demand for accessible sites grow so will the supply. That is the nature of business. Technology is already catching up with better screen readers etc. which will mean more opportunity for the blind/colour blind/mobility impaired/hearing impaired to actually *BE ONLINE*. More users create more demand creating more supply. Instead, now we'll have less tech savvy judges making half informed or emotionally skewed decisions. For example: If this judge just told Target to become accessible to all, Target has the resources to meet just about every accessibility issue you can encounter. But if this judge's decision becomes du jour, Mom and Pop sites which depend on so much open source or free technologies may well find it difficult to meet the requirements of law. You cannot discount Mom and Pops nor the impact the law has on them and their bottom lines. And the impact of their success on local economies. Anyway... I am new here :-D. I came here to learn how to implement accessible guidelines so that I can in turn get my clients (mostly small budget startups) to buy into the need for *some* amount of accessibility in their sites. I'm hoping greater knowledge on my part leads to efficient coding which will equal lowered costs for implementing accessible code for my clients. I'm glad I found this group! Cheers Chere -- // Genesis One And One Studios *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I suspect that this lawsuit was premature The WCAG were published 8 years ago. How long should we wait? I don't know when Section 508 came into law but the UK's DDA was passed in 1995. Seems like long enough to me. But if this judge's decision becomes du jour... It won't. Courts will assess what it is reasonable to expect a company to do, given the resources at their disposal. They will also take into account the number of people affected, which is why Target should be expected to make a much greater effort than a corner store. Courts will use previous judgements as guidance but will always consider the specifics of the case in front of them. judges making half informed or emotionally skewed decisions No, you're confusing them with politicians. I have read the transcripts of many of the proceedings to date (not just the press coverage) and the judges seem to have a pretty good handle on it. There will be expert testimony from both sides, and it won't be difficult to tell who's talking out their backside. In fact there won't be much argument about whether the website is accessible to blind people or not. It isn't. The argument is primarily whether the law actually applies to the website, and you don't need to know anything about accessibility to make that judgement. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Genesis One And One Sent: 04 October 2007 02:23 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Chris Wilson wrote: I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support standards and accesability, but not at this cost. Should target improve their site? Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. No you're point wasn't missed. I agree with you. In fact my first thought/viseral reaction was this is a bad thing. Strong arming merchants with the legal system only means a bunch of red tape and higher prices across the board. It can get even worse if lobbyist get involved. Loop holes, delays and stall tactics and even a potential to set progress back further. The legal system isn't the best arena for this battle. Education is the key. And when that fails playing to the self serving nature of business often works. I suspect that this lawsuit was premature. As the market demand for accessible sites grow so will the supply. That is the nature of business. Technology is already catching up with better screen readers etc. which will mean more opportunity for the blind/colour blind/mobility impaired/hearing impaired to actually *BE ONLINE*. More users create more demand creating more supply. Instead, now we'll have less tech savvy judges making half informed or emotionally skewed decisions. For example: If this judge just told Target to become accessible to all, Target has the resources to meet just about every accessibility issue you can encounter. But if this judge's decision becomes du jour, Mom and Pop sites which depend on so much open source or free technologies may well find it difficult to meet the requirements of law. You cannot discount Mom and Pops nor the impact the law has on them and their bottom lines. And the impact of their success on local economies. Anyway... I am new here :-D. I came here to learn how to implement accessible guidelines so that I can in turn get my clients (mostly small budget startups) to buy into the need for *some* amount of accessibility in their sites. I'm hoping greater knowledge on my part leads to efficient coding which will equal lowered costs for implementing accessible code for my clients. I'm glad I found this group! Cheers Chere -- // Genesis One And One Studios *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On 10/4/07, Chris Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of ' logical fallacy' If you have an argument, make it. Don't assume that just because you think you're clever and right, that everyone else automatically will too. On 10/4/07, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, they are a business. They are trying to make money. Like all of us. All of their decisions were conscious and based on the premise to make money: use flash for marketing purposes. Save money by getting in a crappy web development company. Save money by not targeting a select group of people. So what? Are you blaming them for running a business? We all have to make these kind of decisions: how do we save money, who are the customer groups we are trying to address... If you don't make those decisions you are a crappy business person and your business won't exist for very long. Whether their decisions were right or wrong in our eyes is not the point. They have got the right to make those decisions because they are a private company. Do they have that right? Are you sure? If they had a sign out front their store that said No short people allowed would you argue for their right to make that decision? If a blind person showed up to their store, and the staff decided to not give that person the right change, would you argue that it's the blind person's fault for being stupid enough to try to buy from target in the first place? Would anybody go and sue the local grocery store for having an inaccessible website? No. Because nobody would expect them to spend much time or money or effort into building a website that works. So where do you draw the line? You draw it at the company that you do reasonably expect to have a website that works. A company that obviously has the resources to make their website accessable, but conciously decided to exclude a particular segment of the population out of ignorance. a company earns millions of dollars then they should suddenly have to be liable for making their websites accessible? But if the company only earns a few thousands of dollars then it's all fine? If you have enough resources that making your website accessable to disabled is trivial, you should absolutely make that investment. To do otherwise is simply discrimination. To compare it to a business that obviously doesn't have those resources, and couldn't reasonably be expected to do so, you are making a flawed argument, with a flawed comparison. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
1992 that is 15 years ago :shock: surely its time for a new updated version that includes up to date web version of rules etc. If you want businesses and websites to follow these standards they need to be update In Australia, for example, web accessibility hinges on the Disability Act of 1992 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/ The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On 10/4/07, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether their decisions were right or wrong in our eyes is not the point. They have got the right to make those decisions because they are a private company. Do they have that right? Are you sure? If they had a sign out front their store that said No short people allowed would you argue for their right to make that decision? If a blind person showed up to their store, and the staff decided to not give that person the right change, would you argue that it's the blind person's fault for being stupid enough to try to buy from target in the first place? Giving the incorrect change to somebody has got nothing to do with the whole discussion. We are not talking about ripping people off, we are talking about the kind of services they choose to provide to their customers and the ones they don't. There is also a difference between discriminating people by telling a select group of people that they are not allowed to enter the store in comparison to providing the ability to enter the store. Should every store in the world be forced to provide a ramp for wheelchair access? No. Is it logical to do so for the large stores that serve thousands of people every day? Yes. But just because it is a logical thing to do doesn't mean they should be forced to do it. If they don't do it, they lose money. End of story. Would anybody go and sue the local grocery store for having an inaccessible website? No. Because nobody would expect them to spend much time or money or effort into building a website that works. So where do you draw the line? You draw it at the company that you do reasonably expect to have a website that works. You can't treat company's different before the law just because one is making more money than the other. Now THAT would be discrimination. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
I'm with Chris on this one. Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government entity should be telling a private business what it must do and that includes telling a business it must provide health coverage, or spend a certain percentage on it and what the covereage must include. If that business accepts government monies, then the ball game changes. Of course the private businesses should do some things, accessible websites may be one of them but it is not the governments job to force it. It has NOTHING to do with cost or anything else. Those arguements do not even enter the picture. Bottom line is the government has no business sticking its nose in a private business as long as health and safety issues are not the issue. It doesn't even need to know how much money a business makes except we are forced to report it for our out of control IRS requirements. Oh how we need SR/HR 25 Too much said already. Not sure this is a Web Standards topic any longer Jim Davies *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On 10/3/07, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should every store in the world be forced to provide a ramp for wheelchair access? No. Is it logical to do so for the large stores that serve thousands of people every day? Yes. But just because it is a logical thing to do doesn't mean they should be forced to do it. If they don't do it, they lose money. End of story. If companies were really regulated that way, most of them would not have wheelchair access. Just look at other countries that don't have similar laws. People have to be carried up the stairs. Would anybody go and sue the local grocery store for having an inaccessible website? No. Because nobody would expect them to spend much time or money or effort into building a website that works. So where do you draw the line? You draw it at the company that you do reasonably expect to have a website that works. You can't treat company's different before the law just because one is making more money than the other. Now THAT would be discrimination. Companies (or, corporations) are not people. They are separate legal entities and therefore are subject to different treatment. You cannot compare one legal entity (a corporation) to another (a blind person). Not even the letter of the law does so. Companies get treated differently all the time. What might apply to one company won't apply to the next because one is huge and bordering on monopoly and the other is small and barely making a dent in its market. There is no bill of rights for companies, just legal precedents that influence what happens down the line based on what has been decided in the courts before. We always complain about people making peanut-gallery comments on the business blogs when they know nothing about the technology behind websites. Well, I'm complaining about the people making peanut-gallery comments on this list who know nothing about business or law. Make the arguments you want based on your opinions, but don't make things up. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
I'm inclined to side with legally enforceable web accessibility - putting a regulatory burden on big business won't impact on their profits, and if they have any sense they will put the work to 'good corporate citizen image' use. They'll pass the costs on to the consumer in any case. It's probably a more efficient strategy for the society overall than taxing citizens harder and attempting to cater for the disabled through government channels. The 'hands off private business' approach is naïve and doesn't take account of the social good. A society whose values consist of self-interest at all levels will rapidly descend into dysfunction on many other fronts, and those very companies will be much worse off. There's a spinoff benefit to ensuring web accessibility in any case surely -if compulsory, it would inevitably contribute to a culture where a company's website needs are well-resourced and noticed by management. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Davies Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 1:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard I'm with Chris on this one. Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government entity should be telling a private business what it must do and that includes telling a business it must provide health coverage, or spend a certain percentage on it and what the covereage must include. If that business accepts government monies, then the ball game changes. Of course the private businesses should do some things, accessible websites may be one of them but it is not the governments job to force it. It has NOTHING to do with cost or anything else. Those arguements do not even enter the picture. Bottom line is the government has no business sticking its nose in a private business as long as health and safety issues are not the issue. It doesn't even need to know how much money a business makes except we are forced to report it for our out of control IRS requirements. Oh how we need SR/HR 25 Too much said already. Not sure this is a Web Standards topic any longer Jim Davies *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1880 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 01:15:18 pm Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: ... to providing the ability to enter the store. Should every store in the world be forced to provide a ramp for wheelchair access? No. Sorry, but this is wrong. This is the exact reason for disability legislation, every store should have wheelchair access. It may be difficult and incur a cost but in our democratic countries we elect politicians to make sure that people with disabilities have access to infrastructure, public and private commercial places. Some people have mentioned converting books into Braille and audio formats as too difficult. This is wrong and there are specific exemptions in copyright legislation that permit this, without the publishers' express permission. As one other repondant noted, the Internet has opened up a whole new world to people with disabilities, not just people with visual impairments. The delivery method makes the Internet much more accessible and the protocols used for delivery allow for the delivery of content without discrimination. Someone asked for a car analogy, so to me it is like anti-pollution legislation. Does it cost more to reduce harmful emissions from cars? Yes. Can a car manufacturer ignore this legislation because it costs more? No. Anti-discrimination legislation is the same, it is about protecting sections of our community from being excluded because it costs more. -- Regards, Steve Bathurst Computer Solutions *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. Not every website or even company is run by a large corporation ... not everyone has lots of cash to spend on lawyers... Opening the door to yet more lawsuits may be promoting another form or discrimination which is not often talked about but just as bad as any other - discrimation against people who can't afford lawyers! What is actually needed here is education ... so that the people at Target understand that it is also in their own interest that everyone can use their site properly. If people can't use their site they can't buy anything ... Excluding people from being able to use the site means less customers ... could it be put in a simpler way than that? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard
One thing most people are missing is that with HTML1.0 the www was accessible to a screenreader, there was no images, no tables etc. The only way to make it inaccessible to any members of the community was badly written or organised content. Since that time a bunch of new features have been added 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
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
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
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
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
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] ***