Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Legally courts can and will regulate companies. It's been happening for years! We tell them the required minimum wage, the maximum working hours, we regulate overtime, we tell them to put wheelchair ramps in front of their doors, we zone their buildings, we make them get permits, we do health inspections, etc. etc. etc. We have all these laws in place to protect people. People are guaranteed freedom, not companies. No, the courts cannot force me to make my website accessible, but they can force Target Inc. Co. TM (R) to make their website accessible, just like they can force Target to do a lot of other things, because Target is not a person. It is a seperate entity. It is subject to the rule of the courts. And hopefully the courts are interpreting the laws correctly and deciding what the people want, in applying it to their decisions. I know it gets sketchy after that, but that is how things are supposed to work. We need to stop arguing with each other about the legal basis of this case and just wait and see whether or not the courts will apply the ADA to this website. It's that simple, and hopefully we can now get to what we should be discussing here, that is, the technical reasons why Target.com is not accessible and identifying other company websites that are also making the same mistakes. That's all. Courts adjudicate, not regulate. Regulation is a legislative function in the United State. Courts can and do discerne previously unkown rights. But it is the legislative branch which sets limits on the exercise of those rights with the court's subsequent agreement. And since Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific in 1886, corporations have been granted personhood in the United States. In some senses then, this is a question of balancing competing personal rights. Drew ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Stuart Sherwood wrote: Any such aberration of 'rights' that necessarily violates the legitimate rights of others is destructive to our liberty. True when the others are people. But we're discussing a scenario where the other is a company, and that scenario has radically different requirements for the defense of individual liberty. Only companies/institutions are required to comply with accessibility legislation (in the UK, and US as far as I'm aware). Accessibility legislation does not require individuals to comply with it, rightly so. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Jude Robinson wrote: Only companies/institutions are required to comply with accessibility legislation (in the UK, and US as far as I'm aware). Accessibility legislation does not require individuals to comply with it, rightly so. I thought individuals owned and worked in companies... Companies might legally be entities, but then neither companies nor law exist outside the ideas and actions of individual men. Please respond off list. -- Regards, *Stuart Sherwood* RE-ENTITY DESIGN www.re-entity.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 2/13/06, Duckworth, Nigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stuart Sherwood wrote: I believe there is no right to access services. Any such aberration of 'rights' that necessarily violates the legitimate rights of others is destructive to our liberty. I agree. There is no such thing as the right to force someone else to do anything. In a proper society rights exist precisely to prevent the initiation of physical force in social relationships. As this is more political philosophy than web standards, and a passionate topic for many, I'll post my thoughts later at nigelduckworth.com rather than here. I never wanted this to turn into a political discussion but that's where it's been taken. I thought there was no question about the legal grounds of the whole case but since there have been then I hope I can lay them to rest right here. Legally courts can and will regulate companies. It's been happening for years! We tell them the required minimum wage, the maximum working hours, we regulate overtime, we tell them to put wheelchair ramps in front of their doors, we zone their buildings, we make them get permits, we do health inspections, etc. etc. etc. We have all these laws in place to protect people. People are guaranteed freedom, not companies. No, the courts cannot force me to make my website accessible, but they can force Target Inc. Co. TM (R) to make their website accessible, just like they can force Target to do a lot of other things, because Target is not a person. It is a seperate entity. It is subject to the rule of the courts. And hopefully the courts are interpreting the laws correctly and deciding what the people want, in applying it to their decisions. I know it gets sketchy after that, but that is how things are supposed to work. We need to stop arguing with each other about the legal basis of this case and just wait and see whether or not the courts will apply the ADA to this website. It's that simple, and hopefully we can now get to what we should be discussing here, that is, the technical reasons why Target.com is not accessible and identifying other company websites that are also making the same mistakes. That's all. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Just a quick note: Here in Brazil, some of the big cities have more than 10% of their buses adapted to wheelchairs. it's not that hard. See? it's always an excuse because they will spend money with people who will not pay that bill. spark On 2/12/06, Nic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To draw a paralel with a physical access issue, in the US, in the 60's, african americans wanted to get to ride at the front of the bus. In 2005, people with disabilities can't even get ON the bus. But transit companies can throw all kind of excuses at people with disabilities and reasons why they can't make their system accessible. If they refused access to their bus to someone who's black, because he's black, or a mother with a child, because she has a child, we'd see that as the discrimination it is. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what excuses you wrap around it. -- [web] http://synapsisdi.com.br [livesets] http://djspark.com.br ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
and they just fized that 'one' problem on target.com http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2006_02.html#a000605 overnight. a few hours. spark On 2/12/06, Spark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a quick note: Here in Brazil, some of the big cities have more than 10% of their buses adapted to wheelchairs. it's not that hard. See? it's always an excuse because they will spend money with people who will not pay that bill. spark On 2/12/06, Nic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To draw a paralel with a physical access issue, in the US, in the 60's, african americans wanted to get to ride at the front of the bus. In 2005, people with disabilities can't even get ON the bus. But transit companies can throw all kind of excuses at people with disabilities and reasons why they can't make their system accessible. If they refused access to their bus to someone who's black, because he's black, or a mother with a child, because she has a child, we'd see that as the discrimination it is. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what excuses you wrap around it. -- [web] http://synapsisdi.com.br [livesets] http://djspark.com.br ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- [web] http://synapsisdi.com.br [livesets] http://djspark.com.br ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
some of the big cities have more than 10% of their buses adapted to wheelchairs. Well, that's a good *start*... But... It's still discrimination. How would *you* like being told that you can only take one in ten buses? Here's a bit more about this particular issue http://teriadams.blogspot.com/2006/01/railroaded.html But this is getting somewhat away from the topic of origin. Again, perhaps those of us interested in this debate should take it off list? Nic ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
I saw the Target Sued story over on Cnet (http://tinyurl.com/b3u29). What was amazing to me was the response from a Mr Troy Gaddis in the talkback section (bottom of above page under the title This is Absurd. Here's a highlight: Why do people with disibilites think they DESERVE compensation for such things. I can definetly understand the actual physical store front for being able to accomodate for wheelchair entrances and such, but, this is america, and seeing as how they are not owned by the government, they should have their website designed any way they like. ANYONE who does web programming or development (I do) knows that complying with these would be difficult, and in some situations, impssible. Especially if navigation menu's are written in _javascript_ or Flash... Regards :: PAUL SkyRocket Design Co
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 2/11/06, Paul Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw the Target Sued story over on Cnet (http://tinyurl.com/b3u29). What was amazing to me was the response from a Mr Troy Gaddis in the talkback section (bottom of above page under the title This is Absurd. Here's a highlight: Why do people with disibilites think they DESERVE compensation for such things. I can definetly understand the actual physical store front for being able to accomodate for wheelchair entrances and such, but, this is america, and seeing as how they are not owned by the government, they should have their website designed any way they like. ANYONE who does web programming or development (I do) knows that complying with these would be difficult, and in some situations, impssible. Especially if navigation menu's are written in JavaScript or Flash... Sounds like he has no idea how simple it is to make a website accessible. But that's not the big deal here. If you look at all the comments at Cnet, you'll see that a lot of people agree with Mr. Gaddis... which brings to light a bigger social problem behind the fight for accessible websites; a lot of people, at least in the U.S., just don't care about making accommodations for people with disabilities. There isn't any convincing them otherwise, because you can't make them compassionate; all we can do is hope that the Target lawsuit inspires a precedent for accessibility so that people like Mr. Gaddis have no choice but to consider making websites accessible. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Christian Montoya wrote: Sounds like he has no idea how simple it is to make a website accessible. But that's not the big deal here. If you look at all the comments at Cnet, you'll see that a lot of people agree with Mr. Gaddis... which brings to light a bigger social problem behind the fight for accessible websites; a lot of people, at least in the U.S., just don't care about making accommodations for people with disabilities. There isn't any convincing them otherwise, because you can't make them compassionate; all we can do is hope that the Target lawsuit inspires a precedent for accessibility so that people like Mr. Gaddis have no choice but to consider making websites accessible. I think the reaction against enforced accessibility in cases like this is more to do with that word : enforced. It amounts, rightly or wrongly, to a violation of one's right to 'do as one chooses'. The objections cited, such as the sarcastic suggestion that we sue the radio because the deaf can't hear it, does actually make a valid point and highlights the senseless extremes that one could go to. Far better to approach the problem by emsuggestingem/ that it's a 'good idea' to do x and y because the resulting site can be visually identical but more accessible. Screaming and shouting and making money for lawyers is just fanaticism, and considerably discouraging. The answer, like in so many cases, is in education, not in applying a straight jacket! Just my 2p's worth. Bob McClelland www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Far better to approach the problem by emsuggestingem/ that it's a 'good idea' to do x and y because the resulting site can be visually identical but more accessible. Screaming and shouting and making money for lawyers is just fanaticism, and considerably discouraging. The answer, like in so many cases, is in education, not in applying a straight jacket! Bob, on the surface your point is good. But in practice, in the real world out there, it doesn't work :( Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, education is a key element, and really should be looked at as part of a whole package. That is, it should be *one* of the many steps and tools used to reach the goal of accessibility. Having done advocacy for accessibility for over a decade, I can tell you that there are situations (many more than I wish) where you just *know* there's no amount of education or being nice that will work. You have to try it, but you know that in the end, the *only* thing that the business will understand is to hit them in the wallet, and hit them hard. One of the problems here is that the Americans with Disabilities Act is often perceived as a brick mortar law. That is, a law that applies to building and up to a point, services, which is rather tangible. In fact, the ADA is a civil rights law, to ensure access. If you look at the ADA under the one light, it's easy to assume that it can't possibly apply to the internet. But if you look at it under the right light, it's obvious that it does (or should in any case). At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on another one's right to access services? Would we even *have* this discussion if people being refused access to websites were black and the refusal was because they are black? (note, I'm using black in an international context, not all blacks are African-American, and not with the intent to offend). I'll stop before I go on and on and ramble, this *is* a bit of a pet topic of mine. Feel free to contact me in private to continue it if it's not appropriate to this WSG list :) Nic ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on another one's right to access services? I believe there is no right to access services. Any such aberration of 'rights' that necessarily violates the legitimate rights of others is destructive to our liberty. The question regarding any so called right is: At whose expense?. If there is an answer, you have unmasked why it is illegitimate. True rights exist in and of themselves without cost to others. Furthermore, the right to do as one chooses does not allow you to violate the rights of others! While I build and advocate accessible web sites to the best of my ability, the idea of issuing or advocating force against another at no expense to myself makes me fear the future. I believe any such laws should be rescindered. Stuart Sherwood ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 2/12/06, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on another one's right to access services? I believe there is no right to access services. Any such aberration of 'rights' that necessarily violates the legitimate rights of others is destructive to our liberty. The question regarding any so called right is: At whose expense?. If there is an answer, you have unmasked why it is illegitimate. True rights exist in and of themselves without cost to others. If a site is providing information or services to the public, then the public have a right to be able to access those services. Providing access to all of the public does not impinge on the rights of any other sector of that public. Accessibility and usability go hand in hand and improvements made to accessibility generally benefit all users, not just those with disabilities. I believe education is the key. Many site owners rely on the advice of their site designers and don't have a clue what Standards are, let alone what needs to be done to make a site accessible to the widest possible audience. Target were advised of the problems with their site ten months ago and chose not to fix them. The question that really intrigues me is that of where the responsibility actually lies? With Target (ultimately), with the Amazon engine that generates their site, or with the designers of the site themselves? It is certainly an interesting case. Education and asking nicely for fixes doesn't always work. Theodore Rooselvelt had the right idea, Speak softly and carry a big stick - unfortunately, as long as the ADA is seen to be a bricks and mortar law, it will not be a very effective stick. Lynne Pope ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Designer wrote: The objections cited, such as the sarcastic suggestion that we sue the radio because the deaf can't hear it, does actually make a valid point and highlights the senseless extremes that one could go to. The nature of radio itself is purely the transmission of audio signals. Making it accessible to deaf audiences would not be possible unless the medium itself was changed beyond recognition. The web, however, does not require such a fundamental change in the medium to be accessible to blind users. On the contrary, the fundamental building blocks of the web, HTML markup, have been designed (or at least expanded) with accessibility in mind. I can't speak for US law, but certainly the DDA in the UK has a fundamental tenet of reasonable adjustments running through it. Is it reasonable to, say, demand from a car manufacturer that their vehicles should blind people to drive? No. Is it reasonable to expect a multi-million business to make simple changes to their site to allow blind visitors to shop on there (also in the light of the fact that, for many of those visitors, it's easier to shop online than having to go to physical stores)? Well...yes. Far better to approach the problem by emsuggestingem/ that it's a 'good idea' to do x and y because the resulting site can be visually identical but more accessible. That assumes that fundamentally people are good and do things without laws. I could also suggest that it's not right to discriminate against different races, religions, etc...but certain people will just ignore those suggestions unless there are enforced consequences. Screaming and shouting and making money for lawyers is just fanaticism, and considerably discouraging. The answer, like in so many cases, is in education, not in applying a straight jacket! If I understand the issue correctly, Target have already been informed about their site's shortcomings previously, and have simply chosen to ignore those concerns. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Nic wrote: At which point does one's right to do as one chooses start stepping on another one's right to access services? Would we even *have* this discussion if people being refused access to websites were black and the refusal was because they are black? I really don't see the point you are trying to make here. There is no difference between refusing access to someone based on physical/mental disability (those that require assistive technology) and someone based on their race, culture, religion, etc. It's unnecessary discrimination either way. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
There is no difference between refusing access to someone based on physical/mental disability and someone based on their race, culture, religion, etc. It's unnecessary discrimination either way. Lachlan, that was, actually, my point. Only people don't recognise that refusing access to someone with a disability is the same as refusing access to someone on the basis of their race, culture, religion, etc. If we replaced the issues of disabilities with that of, say, race, this discussion would not happen, because (at least I hope) most people would recognise the issues as being discrimination. To draw a paralel with a physical access issue, in the US, in the 60's, african americans wanted to get to ride at the front of the bus. In 2005, people with disabilities can't even get ON the bus. But transit companies can throw all kind of excuses at people with disabilities and reasons why they can't make their system accessible. If they refused access to their bus to someone who's black, because he's black, or a mother with a child, because she has a child, we'd see that as the discrimination it is. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what excuses you wrap around it. And while for some people it's difficult to see the relationship between that type of discrimination and non-accessible websites, the fact remains, if you don't provide access, you're discriminating. And that is, in more and more countries, against the law Is that a bit clearer? :) Nic ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Absalom Media wrote: Amount of Javascript disabled based on various client profiles I've got: My site: Less than 0.1% Commercial music site: Less than 0.5% Commercial / education health care site: Less than 0.7% What methodology are you using to identify humans as opposed to search engines and other robots? I am used to seeing figures of around 5% in global stats for non-JavaScript users, and assumed this is grossly distorted by something. Very interested to find out more... Cheers Ian -- _ zStudio - Web development and accessibility http://zStudio.co.uk Snippetz.net - Online code library File, manage and re-use your code snippets links http://snippetz.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
What methodology are you using to identify humans as opposed to search engines and other robots? -sorry this doesnt awnser your question and maybe this its not worth mentioning- Even hotmail.com doesnt work if javascript is disabled. That says something i think. Of course there is the search engines to consider but unless im mistaken my biggest concern when using javascript is to do it unobtrusively so as not to set off blockers. is this skewed? -kvnmcwebn ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 09/02/06, Conyers, Dwayne, Mr [C] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I believe accessibility is an important design issue, is there legal precedent for suing someone for poor design? It seems a bit like suing Mickey Dees for spilling hot coffee in the lap... Yes, but spilling hot coffee in the lap isn't at all relevant to good or poor design, nor to accessibility. Not a great comparison, sorry ;) And yes, I'd also assume there are precedents of people in wheel chairs suing a company over poor design. -Rob. N���.�Ȩ�X���+��i�� n�Z�֫v�+��h��y�m�쵩�j�l��.f���.�ץ�w�q(��b��(��,�)උazX����)��
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On Feb 10, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Rob Mientjes wrote: On 09/02/06, Conyers, Dwayne, Mr [C] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I believe accessibility is an important design issue, is there legal precedent for suing someone for poor design? It seems a bit like suing Mickey Dees for spilling hot coffee in the lap... Yes, but spilling hot coffee in the lap isn't at all relevant to goodor poor design, nor to accessibility. Not a great comparison, sorry ;) And yes, I'd also assume there are precedents of people in wheelchairs suing a company over poor design. In fact, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has an enforcement responsibility, though not specifically for the Internet, since it was established prior to the growth of the Web. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/enforce.htm What is new(ish) is extending the accessibility argument to private companies, since Section 508 applies only to the US government (and is not taken very seriously, IMHO). See Derek Featherstone's post on the WaSP site: http, Taking Aim at Target(.com): http://www.webstandards.org/ I see the Web as tremendously liberating for the disabled, and partially-abled or differently-abled, as well as the rapidly growing senior population. Being able to shop online may save an entire day's worth of effort for some. Being able to type instead of sign may facilitate a huge amount of conversation between hearing and non- hearing. Etc. We may not think of it that way if that's not our own experience, but maybe we should try to imagine life without sight or hearing, etc. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Conyers, Dwayne, Mr While I believe accessibility is an important design issue, is there legal precedent for suing someone for poor design? Does the Ramada/Priceline debacle count? http://news.com.com/Travel+sites+agree+to+changes+for+the+blind/2100-1038_3-5318568.html P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ N���.�Ȩ�X���+��i�� n�Z�֫v�+��h��y�m�쵩�j�l��.f���.�ץ�w�q(��b��(��,�)උazX����)��
RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Nic, Whoops! I missed that subtle distinction between the ADA and the Rehab Act. It's been a rough week. Slap me with a blink tag. In any case, I really would like to see a Section 508 (or ADA) case here in the States brought against a private company. The law itself needs a court challenge to test its validity and its viability with respect to electronic accessibility. Only then can we as web developers have any teeth with web standards, including accessibility. At the same time, a successful court case in favor of Section 508 (or ADA) would have repercussions much wider than many may realize. Can you imagine how some big web clients would react to find out their sites are not accessible after their high profile web developers assured them they were? We've already seen on this list a discussion about such a firm and their code on some big name sites. Cheers, I hope my long mail hasn't bored you to tears Oh, no way! It's refreshing to read here about the (potential) ramifications of the code we create. Any honest discussions of web standards needs to have regular doses of real-world effects of that code. Dennis Nic [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: To [EMAIL PROTECTED] wsg@webstandardsgroup.org rdsgroup.org cc Subject 02/09/2006 11:07 RE: [WSG] Target sued over AMnon-accessible site Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] roup.org Dennis, thanks for that link, an interesting opinion, and one that flies in the face of several court cases throughout the US (in particular Florida a few years ago) The New York State Attorney General offered a legal opinion that all web site originating within that state are subject to Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act I read that and I thought huh? That can't be right. And reading the page on the link provided, it turns out that statement isn't quite right. The NY State AG said that the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that private web sites be accessible to blind and visually impaired Internet users. Two things of note here: First, it is the ADA that is cited, NOT Section 508 of the US Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 is NOT applicable as the VRA applies soleley to US Federal agencies (and some organisations funded primarely with federal money, such as some universities), it always has, and always will. This is an important distinction, because the ADA does not mention anywhere in its text that it covers access to the internet (It was written pre-1990 and signed on July 26, 1992). Therefore, to state that the ADA applies also to companies doing business over the internet is a point that can be argued. In fact, while it seems logical that it *should* apply, that very argument has been used several times to lose court cases and make bad precedents (I don't have time to dig my archives for references, but if anyone's interested, I'll be pleased to do so). -- snip -- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
In the store itself they wouldn't see any better but would still pick out shirts, pants, etc. It is the alt tags that make the difference for their software to read a site. Without the alt tags the software doesn't tell them if it's a shirt or a wheelbarrow. LauraOn 2/9/06, Leslie Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only thing I don't understand is how on earth does a blind person pick out items that rely on a photograph (clothes etc)... If you go to Target's home page, you will find, in the left column what appear to be headlines describing sale and special items. They are images - and there is no Alt text. Blind people do shop :-).There are varying degrees of blindness, too, so someone looking at one of those images may go, Oh, wait, is that a red jumper or a parka?Alt text can help in that respect, if the user has a good text-to-speechtool installed.-- http://www.thatgrrl.cahttp://www.thatgrrl.ca/blog The Internet Unplugged
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Dennis Lapcewich wrote: In any case, I really would like to see a Section 508 (or ADA) case here in the States brought against a private company. According to http://www.phillipsnizer.com/internetlib.htm, there has been a Court challenge under the ADA and the private company won: Access Now, Inc., et al. v. Southwest Airlines, Co. Case No. 02-21734-CIV-Seitz/Bandstra (S.D.Fla., October 18, 2002) Court holds that defendant Southwest Airlines Co.'s web site is not a place of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA) and accordingly that Southwest has no obligation under Title III to make its web site accessible to the visually impaired. Title III of the ADA prohibits those who operate places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The Court held that under the plain and unambiguous language of the ADA a public accommodation must be a physical, concrete structure. Because defendant's website was not such a structure, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for relief under Title III of the ADA. (more detail at http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case298.cfm) (see also http://news.com.com/Judge+Disabilities+Act+doesnt+cover+Web/2100-1023_3-962761.html) So, beware of the law - it's a double edged sword in the Land of the Fee ;-) The law itself needs a court challenge to test its validity and its viability with respect to electronic accessibility. 508 is better than nothing, but it's still kinda weak and has outs all through it for the government agencies. Some commentators think that most complaints will be settled with agreements rather than lawsuits and I tend to agree. Governments don't like appearing in their own courts. So, if you want some form of action, start making complaints. Do what John Allsopp did in Aus. and start surveying the websites that don't comply. If everybody waits for someone else to do it, it'll never happen. Only then can we as web developers have any teeth with web standards, including accessibility. At the same time, a successful court case in favor of Section 508 (or ADA) would have repercussions much wider than many may realize. You still seem to be confusing the Rehabilitation Act with the ADA - 508 is part of the Rehab Act and the Rehab Act *only* applies to Federal (not even State) agencies. I don't think that's a subtle distinction, as you suggest above - it's a major piece of the ball of wax. Any court action that will have meaningful effect on the private sector must come under the ADA and, currently, the legal opinion is that the ADA does not cover the Internet because it doesn't mention it specifically. Which is nuts, but there you go - put 3 lawyers in a room, get 7 opinions, all conflicting. 508 does specifically apply to the Internet, and other electronic goods and services, but you generally start there with an administrative complaint (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report2/complaints.htm) and lots of processes to bog down the complaint long before it gets near a court. Can you imagine how some big web clients would react to find out their sites are not accessible after their high profile web developers assured them they were? We've already seen on this list a discussion about such a firm and their code on some big name sites. With respect, I think you're being a little naive about this. It is far more cost-effective for a big company to sic lawyers on an issue than to actually rectify the problem - vis Microsoft vs. just about everybody. When big companies are spending millions to fight having to clean up toxic waste dumps they created, I can't see accessibility on the Internet being high on their corporate radar. Doesn't mean we stop trying, of course... Oh, no way! It's refreshing to read here about the (potential) ramifications of the code we create. Any honest discussions of web standards needs to have regular doses of real-world effects of that code. I agree completely - we need the discussions on this as much as we need the esoterica of CSS code. Regards Mark Harris Technology Research and Consultancy Services ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
I just read about this on another list. I thought others might be interested. Target is a large, stylish but also discount, retailer in the US. This should be a big case for web accessibility. __ Blind Cal student sues Target. Suit charges retailer's Web site cannot be used by the sightless. ... What I hope is that Target and other online merchants will realize how important it is to reach 1.3 million people in this nation and the growing baby-boomer population who will also be losing vision, said plaintiff Bruce Sexton Jr., 24, a blind third-year student at UC Berkeley. Sexton, who is president of the California Association of Blind Students, said making Target's Web site accessible to the blind would also make it more navigable by those without vision problems http://tinyurl.com/7ze7p __ Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
This has the potential for making some positive improvements in the commercial web sphere. Target is not blind to good design. Their new prescription bottles have been hailed as one of the best designs of the last decade (I think they were designed by a graduate student before Target purchased them. But at least they recognized the value) Target has also commissioned top fashion and architecture designers to develop affordable products (Michael Graves, Phiippe Stark, ...) Target may actually replace their site with an insightful, accessible solution that is a model for other companies. Unfortunately, it takes a law suit to get corporations to make changes these days. Ted www.tdrake.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marilyn Langfeld Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:43 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site I just read about this on another list. I thought others might be interested. Target is a large, stylish but also discount, retailer in the US. This should be a big case for web accessibility. __ Blind Cal student sues Target. Suit charges retailer's Web site cannot be used by the sightless. ... What I hope is that Target and other online merchants will realize how important it is to reach 1.3 million people in this nation and the growing baby-boomer population who will also be losing vision, said plaintiff Bruce Sexton Jr., 24, a blind third-year student at UC Berkeley. Sexton, who is president of the California Association of Blind Students, said making Target's Web site accessible to the blind would also make it more navigable by those without vision problems http://tinyurl.com/7ze7p __ Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
From: Ted Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] This has the potential for making some positive improvements in the commercial web sphere. Target is not blind to good design. Their new prescription bottles have been hailed as one of the best designs of the last decade (I think they were designed by a graduate student before Target purchased them. But at least they recognized the value) Target has also commissioned top fashion and architecture designers to develop affordable products (Michael Graves, Phiippe Stark, ...) Target may actually replace their site with an insightful, accessible solution that is a model for other companies. Unfortunately, it takes a law suit to get corporations to make changes these days. I'm dumbfounded if, in fact, Target was advised of the absence of Alt text and did nothing. I want to believe there must be more to the story :-) That said, I think it does emphasize the responsibility that web designers have to make their sites accessible - for no other reason, then it's the good and moral thing to do. And with that said, I believe the authors and marketers of JAWS should be ripped a new orifice for selling a seriously flawed application that itself does not support long-standing standards. I feel better now. -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
From: Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only thing I don't understand is how on earth does a blind person pick out items that rely on a photograph (clothes etc)... If you go to Target's home page, you will find, in the left column what appear to be headlines describing sale and special items. They are images - and there is no Alt text. Blind people do shop :-). -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
The only thing I don't understand is how on earth does a blind person pick out items that rely on a photograph (clothes etc)... If you go to Target's home page, you will find, in the left column what appear to be headlines describing sale and special items. They are images - and there is no Alt text. Blind people do shop :-). There are varying degrees of blindness, too, so someone looking at one of those images may go, Oh, wait, is that a red jumper or a parka? Alt text can help in that respect, if the user has a good text-to-speech tool installed. Leslie Riggs ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Dennis, thanks for that link, an interesting opinion, and one that flies in the face of several court cases throughout the US (in particular Florida a few years ago) The New York State Attorney General offered a legal opinion that all web site originating within that state are subject to Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act I read that and I thought huh? That can't be right. And reading the page on the link provided, it turns out that statement isn't quite right. The NY State AG said that the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that private web sites be accessible to blind and visually impaired Internet users. Two things of note here: First, it is the ADA that is cited, NOT Section 508 of the US Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 is NOT applicable as the VRA applies soleley to US Federal agencies (and some organisations funded primarely with federal money, such as some universities), it always has, and always will. This is an important distinction, because the ADA does not mention anywhere in its text that it covers access to the internet (It was written pre-1990 and signed on July 26, 1992). Therefore, to state that the ADA applies also to companies doing business over the internet is a point that can be argued. In fact, while it seems logical that it *should* apply, that very argument has been used several times to lose court cases and make bad precedents (I don't have time to dig my archives for references, but if anyone's interested, I'll be pleased to do so). Since the ADA doesn't not mention the internet, it also does not provide compliance guidelines for websites. While it is logical that either WCAG or 508 would be followed, sadly, that's not how the law functions. So we have a law that doesn't technically apply, despite the opinion of one AG, and even if it did apply, there is no compliance schedule to guide people (unlike for physical structures, such as ramps (prescribed gradient of 1:12, or door width of clear opening width of 32, etc). In my opinion, this is a positive statement by an AG, but one that will not accomplish a whole lot. Big splash in a small pond :( Secondly, the AG makes reference to people who are blind and visually impaired using the internet. Which is good. But what about all the *other* disabilities? What about folks with mobility impairments? Those with seizure disorders? Cognitive disabilities? Etc... People with disabilities like that also have accessibility needs. The problem with that statement is that it could be used *against* accessibility. The way precedent works, lawyers and courts look for things that have been said before and use it to build up their cases (or decisions in the case of a court). It is easy to see how an attorney defending a client with a non-accessible website could say something like Yes, but the NY State AG said that the ADA applied to blind user, without mentioning any other disabilities, therefore, the AG's statement cannot be used to support the fact that the ADA applies to all accessibility aspects on the internet. The good thing is, such a statement can't really be used as a legal precedent, but it will certainly influence thinking. Finally, that page speaks about settlements. If you do a bit of research on the web, you'll notice that there are next to NO decisions in court cases against businesses with non accessible court cases. The few that do have decisions are actually *against* accessibility. In fact, I know of only one case that was successfully won by the plaintiff, and this was in Australia not in the US, against the Olympic Committee's website. I would imagine that there *are* more successful cases out there, just haven't heard of them. This does NOT mean that there aren't a lot of companies that are sued, just that the majority will settle out of court. This is good, at least there may be some improvement out of it, but settlements can't be used as legal precendents, which means that actual court cases still have nothing to support the fact that the ADA applies to the internet (the situation may be different in other countries, of course, as the ADA doesn't apply outside the US [yes, I've had people tell me it applied worldwide!!!]) Please note, I'm not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be one :) I am, however, a person with a disability who has been doing a lot of grassroot advocacy and work with/around the ADA, and web accessibility, for over a decade now. Cheers, I hope my long mail hasn't bored you to tears Nic ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
So I have a question, so even if it's Alt Text, how would a blind person even see to read?Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Joseph R. B. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The only thing I don't understand is how on earth does a blind person pick out items that rely on a photograph (clothes etc)...If you go to Target's home page, you will find, in the left column what appear to be headlines describing sale and special items. They are images - and there is no Alt text. Blind people do shop :-).-- Al SparberPVIIhttp://www.projectseven.com"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Alt text is read aloud be a screen reader for those who have sight disabilities I believe. Minh D. Tran wrote: So I have a question, so even if it's Alt Text, how would a blind person even see to read? Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Joseph R. B. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The only thing I don't understand is how on earth does a blind person pick out items that rely on a photograph (clothes etc)... If you go to Target's home page, you will find, in the left column what appear to be headlines describing sale and special items. They are images - and there is no Alt text. Blind people do shop :-). -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com "Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday". ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
From: Minh D. Tran [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site So I have a question, so even if it's Alt Text, how would a blind person even see to read? - It's read to them with a special application called an assistive reader. The application reads the alt text and/or title, or provides a means to open a special file if a long description attribute is used. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Blind Cal student sues Target. Suit charges retailer's Web site cannot be used by the sightless. ... What I hope is that Target and other online merchants will realize how important it is to reach 1.3 million people in this nation and the growing baby-boomer population who will also be losing vision, said plaintiff Bruce Sexton Jr., 24, a blind third-year student at UC Berkeley. Sexton, who is president of the California Association of Blind Students, said making Target's Web site accessible to the blind would also make it more navigable by those without vision problems http://tinyurl.com/7ze7p __ I'm happy to see this. thanks. a question. I just installed the extension Fangs on mozilla last night (i don't think its available for the latest Firefox version, yet). https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefoxcategory=Developer%20Toolsnumpg=10id=402 hu. it doesn't say it will install on Mozilla, but visited with mozilla and it did - works fine. does anyone have any opinion as to how accurate it is? other users here? cheers Donna -- Donna Jones Portland, Maine 207 772 0266 http://www.westendwebs.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
So I have a question, so even if it's Alt Text, how would a blind person even see to read? Minh, Apart from screen readers that others have mentioned, there are also devices such as refreshable braille devices, which transfer text into braille: http://www.flickr.com/photos/russweakley/58957885/ It might be worth having a read of this article that outlines the various assitive technologies and how they are used: Disabilities and Technologies http://www.usability.com.au/resources/statistics.cfm There is also a quick and dirty version here: http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/accessibility/04.htm HTH Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
thanks Russruss - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I have a question, so even if it's Alt Text, how would a blind person even see to read?Minh,Apart from screen readers that others have mentioned, there are also devicessuch as refreshable braille devices, which transfer text into braille:http://www.flickr.com/photos/russweakley/58957885/It might be worth having a read of this article that outlines the variousassitive technologies and how they are used:Disabilities and Technologieshttp://www.usability.com.au/resources/statistics.cfmThere is also a quick and dirty version here:http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/accessibility/04.htmHTHRuss**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help** Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
As a blind web site designer who has his alt tag reading protion of his screen reading software. I would say their should be both images and a text description. I have come across many fully sighted (20/20 Vision( persons that have difficulty with even the simplest images. I like to provide a link to a page with the image and a full text version. And how about dialup users. Many graphic images can slow a dialup user's access signifcantlly. Angus MacKinnon MacKinnon Crest Saying Latin - Audentes Fortuna Juvat English - Fortune Assists The Daring Web page http://www.infoforce-services.com Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. 2nd Vice president http://www.choroideremia.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Angus at InfoForce Services wrote: As a blind web site designer who has his alt tag reading protion of his screen reading software. I would say their should be both images and a text description. I have come across many fully sighted (20/20 Vision( persons that have difficulty with even the simplest images. I like to provide a link to a page with the image and a full text version. And how about dialup users. Many graphic images can slow a dialup user's access signifcantlly. But in the case of the Target site, the images on the left-hand side are just images of text, so wouldn't really need a description. And on product pages themselves, the description is already given (although in a horridly inaccessible way, which uses display:none and can't be shown without javascript, among other things) P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Patrick which uses display:none and can't be shown without javascript, among other things) Most people have JAVAScript turned off, so I started to learn PHP. Angus MacKinnon MacKinnon Crest Saying Latin - Audentes Fortuna Juvat English - Fortune Assists The Daring Web page http://www.infoforce-services.com Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. 2nd Vice president http://www.choroideremia.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Angus at InfoForce Services wrote: Most people have JAVAScript turned off, According to what statistics? I think you'll find most people actually have it turned on. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 10/02/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angus at InfoForce Services wrote: Most people have JAVAScript turned off, According to what statistics? I think you'll find most people actually have it turned on. Indeed. I can report from some recent testing on the sites I work on (which have hundreds of thousands of members, and thousands of simultaneous users), that less than 0.1% of users had Javascript turned off. They're dating sites, so they're probably skewed more towards the home/casual user than the office user, but still... I was surprised it was so stark. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
Lachlan and Matt Thank you for the information. I should recheck. Do you have information about International web users? Angus MacKinnon MacKinnon Crest Saying Latin - Audentes Fortuna Juvat English - Fortune Assists The Daring Web page http://www.infoforce-services.com Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. 2nd Vice president http://www.choroideremia.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
On 10/02/06, Angus at InfoForce Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lachlan and Matt Thank you for the information. I should recheck. Do you have information about International web users? For the sites I referred to as having less than 0.1% of members with Javascript turned off, the users are largely in Europe - especially Netherlands, Spain and UK. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site
matt andrews wrote: On 10/02/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angus at InfoForce Services wrote: Most people have JAVAScript turned off, According to what statistics? I think you'll find most people actually have it turned on. Indeed. I can report from some recent testing on the sites I work on (which have hundreds of thousands of members, and thousands of simultaneous users), that less than 0.1% of users had Javascript turned off. They're dating sites, so they're probably skewed more towards the home/casual user than the office user, but still... I was surprised it was so stark. Amount of Javascript disabled based on various client profiles I've got: My site: Less than 0.1% Commercial music site: Less than 0.5% Commercial / education health care site: Less than 0.7% References available on request. Lawrence -- Lawrence Meckan Absalom Media Mob: (04) 1047 9633 ABN: 49 286 495 792 http://www.absalom.biz ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
