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 he

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 t

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

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 requi

RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site

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 pro

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.c

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 > b

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: >

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 s

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 ar

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. Ma

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 leg

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 ques

RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site

> Far better to approach the problem by suggesting 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 i

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 fo

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

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 f

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 N

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 PR

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 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 te

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? P

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

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

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

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 a

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

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 a

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 Rese

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

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://we

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://ww

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 sim

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 li

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

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

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 los

Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site

From: "Minh D. Tran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 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&

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]>

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

RE: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site

Marilyn Langfeld wrote: > Target is a large, stylish but also discount, > retailer in the US. This should be a big case > for web accessibility. 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 Mic

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 S

Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site

[EMAIL PROTECTED] rdsgroup.org Subject Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site

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

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 sp

Re: [WSG] Target sued over non-accessible site

I'm calling all my blind friends right now and having them try to buys things on all sorts of sites in a conspiracy to make millions...just kidding...if only! Actually, as a US developer, this is a golden opportunity to go after all types of business to make their sites more accessible. The T

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

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 the