Is this a joke or what?

[Zeb_Carter]

A federal judge in San Francisco is allowing a suit to go forward under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If this plaintiff prevails in this suit it could have an effect on every single Internet website out there. In this particular lawsuit Target Corporation is being sued by the National Federation of the Blind. The claim is that Target's website violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because it is not accessible to the blind.

Question: Should this suit have been dismissed as frivolous?
Question: Should a visual media be required to conform to non-visual laws?

 

[scheherazade_79]

Ummm... I can't think of any websites that are accessible to blind people. Generally, if you're blind, you stick to talking books or braille newspapers, rather than venture into cyberspace.

It would be the equivalent of the Football Association being sued for not making soccer accessible to people with no legs...

Or the Royal Philharmonic being sued by the Society of the Deaf...

There was a case in the UK a while back when a woman with severe dyslexia failed her training course to be an English teacher on the grounds that she had no way of telling when either she or the kids had misspelled something. It was ridiculous and got thrown out of court.

I hope the same happens in this case.

There's a point in political correctness where the rest of the world becomes nonsense as a result.

 

[oggbashan]

The blind might have a case if access to the internet is required to get a discount e.g. insure your car online and save 10%.

I have heard complaints from some local non-computer literate elderly that they can no longer get information such as up-to-date train timings without the internet because telephone trees don't work.

The assumption seems to be that if you don't have the internet you must be poor and therefore a customer we don't want.

Og

 

[Alessia Brio]

If the business accepts federal money, then it must be accessible. That's how the ADA works.

People with visual impairments use the Internet a great deal -- for all the same reasons the rest of us do. They most often use screen reader software or, if partially sighted, just enlarge the text until it's readable. A webmaster could conceivably develop a site in such a way that the software would be unable to read the text or the visitor could not enlarge the text.

Thus, if the plaintiff prevails, it would not effect "every single Internet website out there" -- it would only effect those who get money (grants, etc.) from the U.S. government. From my POV, if a business is accepting money that I've provided the government in the form of my tax dollars, then it should be accessible to me. That includes business conducted on the Internet.

ETA: HERE is a site with information about Internet accessibility for people with visual impairments.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I do know that there is software and hardware that will allow a blind person to access the internet. The software/hardware combo translates the text of the web to braile on the hardware. The software would not be able to translate a graphic which contains text, it will translate pdf's and standard text.

And from what I see on Target's web site is all the links are plain text along with the descriptions. So, personally, I think the web site is accessible, unless the complainant doesn't have the required software/hardware.

 

[tanyachrs]

Blind people certainly use the internet and have every right and reason to. As it happens, the same techniques and practices that make a site accessible to the blind also make it more pleasant and accessible to the rest of us.

 

[scheherazade_79]

The blind might have a case if access to the internet is required to get a discount e.g. insure your car online and save 10%.

If someone's struggling to the point where they can't make out the writing on a computer monitor, I really, really hope they're not going to insure a car and take it for a spin up the motorway... Or is that discrimination, too?

I'm really not being fippant or sarcastic about this - I'm not sure I understand anything anymore.

What if hard of hearing people can't hear a particular tune on a website? Do they have the right to sue? And what about the colour blind? And those with attention deficit disorder, who can only read text when it's arranged into small chunks?What I'm trying to say is that it would cost millions of pounds to conceive and design a website that's accessible to absolutely everyone.

If you start suing, where are you going to stop?

 

[oggbashan]

If someone's struggling to the point where they can't make out the writing on a computer monitor, I really, really hope they're not going to insure a car and take it for a spin up the motorway... Or is that discrimination, too?

The Chairman of our local Blind Club cycles around our town. He scares me stiff. He is registered as blind and has severe tunnel vision. He has been 'blind' for thirty years and no car has hit him yet. Perhaps its because everyone local knows that he can't see much and we give him a wide berth. What worries me more is that anyone under 70 can have deteriorating eyesight and no one can stop them driving unless they have an accident AND their impaired vision is noticed.

A blind person can own and insure a car even if someone else drives it for them. Our Blind Club Chairman insures the club's minibus.

Og

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Blind people certainly use the internet and have every right and reason to. As it happens, the same techniques and practices that make a site accessible to the blind also make it more pleasant and accessible to the rest of us.

So, a person who can't see the text or colors should dictate how a web site, which main purpose is to be "seen", is displayed?

So when do we issue pilots licenses to them and let them fly commercial airliners?

"Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is you Captain "Blind" Larry speaking to you from the flight deck..."

He never gets to finish as the rush of the passengers to get off the plane droned out the loudspeaker. All except the deaf guy in the back of the plane that is.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Maybe this judge let it through to trial so that it could be defeated there, setting the precident, and ending the issue once and for all?

 

[Alessia Brio]

I do know that there is software and hardware that will allow a blind person to access the internet. The software/hardware combo translates the text of the web to braile on the hardware. The software would not be able to translate a graphic which contains text, it will translate pdf's and standard text.

And from what I see on Target's web site is all the links are plain text along with the descriptions. So, personally, I think the web site is accessible, unless the complainant doesn't have the required software/hardware.

From what I could see of Target's site (in a 30-second visit), I noted that none of the images had mouse-over text alternative, which is just one thing that would make it inaccessible to the visually impaired. Lots of flash media would be another.

All it would take would be a link to a "text only" version of the site to make it accessible.

Scheh -- If businesses that accept federal money can exclude a segment of the tax-paying population, then that segment of the population should be able to "opt out" of paying that portion of their taxes. Otherwise, it's completely unfair to tax them for something the cannot use/enjoy/access.

The ADA was passed to ensure that tax-supported ventures are accessible by ALL who are paying those taxes.

Given that the suit is being brought by the NFB, it's probably safe to say that it doesn't involve the consumer(s) simply not having the requisite screen reader software. I can't imagine, for example, UCP suing Target on behalf of people who are non-ambulatory simply because those people do not have wheelchairs.

 

[3113]

Alessia and Og make excellent points. Before we run ranting and screaming about "political correctness"--the ultimate straw boogie-man--let's get the facts straight.

Here's portions of the article:

In her decision early this month, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel also denied an NFB motion for a preliminary injunction to force Target to promptly make its site accessible to blind people.

This indicates that while the Judge thinks they have a case, she did not believe they had enough of a case to warrent a preliminary injunction. THEREFORE, Target would seem to have a case as well.

So the outcome is not assured and we need not panic. Though I'm not sure what we're panicking about. Exactly HOW hard would it be for Target to make it's website accessable to the blind? It's a website for fuck's sake! It's probably going to cost them more to go to court than it would be to adjust the stupid website.

Patel noted that Target’s Web site “is a means to gain access to the store, and it is ironic that Target, through its merchandising efforts on the one hand, seeks to reach greater numbers of customers and enlarge its consumer base, while on the other hand it seeks to escape the requirements of the ADA.”

This is the Judge's reasoning. That statue says that the disabled need to be given access to all public services including being able to enter and use stores, restaurants, etc. Target is saying that it only has to accommodate them in the store, the Judge says, no, it has to accommodate them on the website as well as that is part of their "public" site. And the law says that all public sites have to accommodate the disabled.

I don't think this logic is necessarily unreasonable. A website is not like a soccer game (apples and oranges argument there, by the way). There is software out there that can make this website accessable to the blind, unlike trying to make a soccer game accessable to a legless person. If there was NO such software, then your analogy would have been correct...and the judge would have probably tossed out the case.

I don't say that the ADA is always right or doesn't go overboard, but we should keep in mind: Being disabled is the one minority group that any of us could join at any second. If you use Target's website today, and go blind tomorrow, you can no longer use it. The Judge is saying that this would be similar to being able to go into the store if you're sighted, yet being refused entry into the store if you lost your sight. I don't see how "PC" it can be if this sort of misfortune can happen to any of us. This is not like trying to accommodate a religious or lifestyle preference.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

It's a website for fuck's sake! It's probably going to cost them more to go to court than it would be to adjust the stupid website.

The voice of sanity and reason!

I mean... hello!??! Do we really need to waste the court's time with this? Just make the damned web site accessible...

and it doesn't look good for Target to say, "Fuck the blind! We'll make our website however we want"... does it?

 

[Alessia Brio]

I don't say that the ADA is always right or doesn't go overboard, but we should keep in mind: Being disabled is the one minority group that any of us could join at any second.

The only way to avoid disability ... is death.

 

[S-Des]

Scheh -- If businesses that accept federal money can exclude a segment of the tax-paying population, then that segment of the population should be able to "opt out" of paying that portion of their taxes. Otherwise, it's completely unfair to tax them for something the cannot use/enjoy/access.

The ADA was passed to ensure that tax-supported ventures are accessible by ALL who are paying those taxes.

I think it's a good idea to make things accessible to everyone, but I hate this argument. It's completely unfair for us to pay taxes on a lot of things we don't get to use. Despite the fact they you might not be able to take advantage of a service (or maybe oppose that service with every fiber of your being), we still have to pay taxes on it. Everyone is in the same boat.

 

[Alessia Brio]

I think it's a good idea to make things accessible to everyone, but I hate this argument. It's completely unfair for us to pay taxes on a lot of things we don't get to use. Despite the fact they you might not be able to take advantage of a service (or maybe oppose that service with every fiber of your being), we still have to pay taxes on it. Everyone is in the same boat.

"Don't" and "can't" are two entirely different arguments, though.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Another question comes to mind. Why Target? Did Target mistreat this person as a customer in one of their stores?

Why not Wal-mart, K-Mart (aka Sears) or any other of a dozen chains?

 

[S-Des]

"Don't" and "can't" are two entirely different arguments, though.

I know...it makes it much more difficult to be fair to everyone. I try very hard to remember that not everyone has the same opportunities I've had. However people who "can't" have children (or guys who are unable to find a wife) still have to pay taxes to support schools. There are a lot of examples of "can't" that I could find in daily life. I guess the point is that Target should do it because it's the right thing, not be sued about it (unless that's the point of the lawsuit...not to get rich, but to force them to comply with regulations).

But I'm glad we've come far enough in this society to care about these things. I think is says a lot about us (it wasn't long ago that the disabled were completely ignored).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Some other thoughts on this...

Radio Stations? Will they now have to provide signers for those who are deaf? Hundreds of Radio stations around the country receive government money. Will they now be required to conform to ADA?

TV stations? Same as above. Will their broadcasts now have to be modified to allow the blind to watch?


Accessibility to a building is one thing but to extend that to the building occupant’s website is ludicrous.

 

[Alessia Brio]

Some other thoughts on this...

Radio Stations? Will they now have to provide signers for those who are deaf? Hundreds of Radio stations around the country receive government money. Will they now be required to conform to ADA?

TV stations? Same as above. Will their broadcasts now have to be modified to allow the blind to watch?


Accessibility to a building is one thing but to extend that to the building occupant’s website is ludicrous.

You're going overboard, Zeb. Website accessibility is far from "ludicrous."

As for the radio station example, that's where the "fundamentally alter" clause comes into effect: Modifications of policies and practices are not required when it would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.

However, by providing a website, most radio broadcasts ARE accessible to the deaf.

 

[minsue]

I do know that there is software and hardware that will allow a blind person to access the internet. The software/hardware combo translates the text of the web to braile on the hardware. The software would not be able to translate a graphic which contains text, it will translate pdf's and standard text.

And from what I see on Target's web site is all the links are plain text along with the descriptions. So, personally, I think the web site is accessible, unless the complainant doesn't have the required software/hardware.

The results of a quick Google search answer that, Zeb.

"Although it might seem odd that the blind would use a Web site like www.target.com, advocates for the blind said Wednesday that computer software and coding embedded in Web sites makes surfing the Internet as easy for those who cannot see as it is for those who can.

But Target's Web site, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, does not support such software, making the site useless to the blind -- a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and various state laws. "

URL here

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The results of a quick Google search answer that, Zeb.

"Although it might seem odd that the blind would use a Web site like www.target.com, advocates for the blind said Wednesday that computer software and coding embedded in Web sites makes surfing the Internet as easy for those who cannot see as it is for those who can.

But Target's Web site, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, does not support such software, making the site useless to the blind -- a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and various state laws. "

URL here

Ah...thanks. Good to know.

 

[tanyachrs]

So, a person who can't see the text or colors should dictate how a web site, which main purpose is to be "seen", is displayed?

The main purpose of a website ought to be to convey information.

One of the ways in which a website is made more accessible is to have highly contrasing colors for text and background. You may not have any vision problems but do you really enjoy it when web designers use dark grey text on a light grey background because it's "cool"? Ever been annoyed by some cutesy graphic that doesn't tell you what it'll do if you click it and hovering over it produces no pop-up hint? The things that visually impaired people need to make a site useable are the same things you need. They just need them more badly.

Making a site accessible doesn't mean making it ugly or taking all the graphics out of it or crippling it in any way for people who can see. More sites are accessible than you realize.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Having just taken a fairly cursory look at the Target and Wal-Mart web sites I have to say there is not much difference between the two. They both use HTML and Java--Script, no flash, so the problem would be...what?

What part of HTML or Java--Script is blocking the use of this website?

Is it the website as a whole or just that part to due with ordering product?

Target looks to be using software developed my Amazon.com.

And Wal-Mart uses code by Omniture, Inc. for ordering.

 

[Alessia Brio]

Having just taken a fairly cursory look at the Target and Wal-Mart web sites I have to say there is not much difference between the two. They both use HTML and Java--Script, no flash, so the problem would be...what?

What part of HTML or Java--Script is blocking the use of this website?

Is it the website as a whole or just that part to due with ordering product?

Target looks to be using software developed my Amazon.com.

And Wal-Mart uses code by Omniture, Inc. for ordering.

The easiest way to check, Zeb, would be to attempt to access each site using software such as BrowseAloud or other common accessibility tool. Also, attempt to apply overrides to font, color, and text size in Internet Explorer's Tools > Accessibility menu. If a site prevents these overrides, it is not accessible.