Forum Moderators: open
A federal district court judge ruled yesterday that a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind. [...] The suit charges that Target's website [...] is inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)[...]. Target asked the court to dismiss the action by arguing that no law requires Target to make its website accessible. The Court denied Target's motion to dismiss and held that the federal and state civil rights laws do apply to a website such as target.com.
Does every book ever published HAVE to be available in braile? Nope, so why does my website HAVE to be the electronic equivalent?
It doesn't. And nowhere in this topic does it state that. We're talking about basic html guidelines here and nothing else. If the guidelines for developing a website were followed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Doesn't it strike you as somewhat bizarre that I could for example sell Amazon books that a blind man cannot read but I have to make sure he can read the *website*?
Not at all. The issues at hand here are not only affecting the blind.
I see all sorts of good and moral reasons why you might want to make your site easy to access but I see no justification whatsoever in forcing people to comply with an ill-thought law that demands they make up for other people's disability.
The W3C Guidelines for all things related to this are now becoming more public mainstream. If you think about this, the laws being thrown about now will be the groundwork for the change that must take place if the web is to move forward.
Developers, designers, consultants, etc. cannot continue to design as if it were 1995. The year is 2006. One of the biggest and most important things one can do is to learn basic html, the elements, the attributes, what each one means and how it makes a page whole. And then, one will need to learn basic CSS. With an external style sheet and NO inline styling and/or presentational markup, you've covered a very large part of the accessibility issue. As long as a user can override your stylesheet, you are leaps and bounds ahead of those who have pages full of <font> and/or inline styling. ;)
The above applies to the 10 page small business site and also the 5,000,000 page big business site.
In regards to this legislation, I'm all for it. But, I'm in no way supportive of the methods (the litigation issues) being used to achieve the goal.
[edited by: pageoneresults at 1:27 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2006]
[...] Blind people are not equal. They are blind.
[...]
They don't see stuff. That's what blind means. You KNOW this, so why the insistence that they be equal? They simply are not.
Well I am afraid that's where you are WRONG - from a legal point of view.
If you own a shop and refuses to sell your products to disable people that's discrimination.
If you own a shop and refuses to accomodate your shop access to allow them to be able to get in the shop and buy your products that's discrimination.
The same laws should apply to the internet. End of story.
Nope, so why does my website HAVE to be the electronic equivalent?
That's not a good analogy for what this is about.
This is not about making a duplicate version of anything, it's about some simple fine-tuning for one version.
There is so much sloppy logic in this thread that it makes my head ache.
I'm seeing a strong pattern: the posters who are the most upset and making the most excuses are unlikely to be expressing an accurate understanding of what it takes to make a site accessible. I'm seeing many opinions that are based on fear, not knowledge or sound thinking.
It's ironic: if the first thing some folks had heard about accessibility was that the techniques are a reliable shortcut to better SEO, they'd be all over it thinking, "I gotta learn how to do that."
It's ironic: if the first thing some folks had heard about accessibility was that the techniques are a reliable shortcut to better SEO, they'd be all over it thinking, "I gotta learn how to do that."
That's actually what happened to me! :)
I've long since changed my view on Accessibility and Usability. You no longer really have to think about the SEO aspect of things when following the guidelines that have been established for many years. Those guidelines are continually updated to reflect new technologies and Internet trends.
Want to read an excellent SEO Book?
[w3.org...]
[edited by: pageoneresults at 2:10 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2006]
This case needed to happen to establish that websites are an extension of the shop floor and that anti-discrimination laws and laws about accessibility apply in cyberspace. This is a good thing for web design. It will hopefully mean that standards will have to be followed so that what works in one browser or assistive technology will work in all of them and so that professional designers will have a real specification to follow that works and a standard of quality to live up to.
I hope the DRC pursues something like this in the UK very soon so that designers and companies begin to take accessibility more seriously and start thinking about it when constructing their sites because it will make the web easier to use for everyone, not just blind people.
[edited by: encyclo at 2:18 am (utc) on Sep. 15, 2006]
Problem is, once you have such a precedent you cannot easily stop it. A law is a law and is not just a law for "companies like Target".
As someone pointed out earlier, if Target had immediately started trying to change they would actually open themselves up to a lawsuit in any case.
P.
I do support following the W3C guidelines for accessibility reasons, in this case just adding alt text and mousefree navigation isn't particularly hard so I could follow it.
Do I believe that people should be forced to do it though? Absolutely not. I think back to those signs in restaurants that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". It may be a bad move for them politically, but I believe they do have the right to refuse service to anyone.
If you are the victim of such an unfortunate occurence, then do what is in your power without resorting to the legal system. Protest, start boycotting groups, hassle the customer support lines, or hell just shop somewhere else! Just DON'T SUE!
Yes Target could have complied easily (maybe) and then this would have been done and over with. But honestly, I think the real antagonist here is the blind student that called for a class action lawsuit. That's childish and inappropriate.
Doesn't Wal-Mart have an accessible site? I would have tried there first. Then you've already won a battle. Just say SCREW TARGET and tell all your friends to do the same, then you've made them lose business. But to take Target's money on a whim, without any real "harm" being done, seems a bit juvenile. Just my opinion just like everything else
[edited by: encyclo at 2:21 am (utc) on Sep. 15, 2006]
People are panicking unnecessarily. Nobody's suggesting for starters that Bob Smith's personal webpage has to be perfectly coded.
Even with commercial endeavors we're not (or at least I am not) suggesting that there should be laws that require perfectly coded pages. What we are suggesting is that a basic level of accessibility be supported (e.g. ALT attributes for graphics and keyboard navigation.). As has been pointed out and ignored is that HTML by its very nature is already accessible and keyboard navigation is inherently built into HTML. All one normally needs to do is simply add relevant ALT attributes to graphics, add label tags to forms and not do anything stupid that disables keyboard navigation to be accessible.
Should COMMERCIAL websites fall under the ADA yes they should. Should they be required to meet WCAG Level 1 yes. Should they be required to meet WCAG Level 3, maybe not. The web is inherently accessible. It was designed from the ground up to be accessible. In order to render a site inaccessible requires very significant failures on the part of the website's developer.
In a B2B setting (e.g. web based CRM) existing equal employment opportunity laws could very easily be used to force accessibility because the web is inherently accessible and failing to make that B2B web application accessible is denying a disabled person the ability to perform a specific task for no good reason.
Nor are they suggesting that if you miss out a couple of alt attributes or accidentally forget to label one form field you can be sued. But, if you are a business and you put up a public site that a non-disabled person can use, in the same way as a brick and mortar shop, then you need to take reasonable steps to ensure that as many users as possible can complete the main call to action of the site.
Offline business are required to put in curb cutouts, elevators, ramps, automatic doors, accessible bathrooms, counter areas of certain heights, etc. Requiring an online business to provide basic levels of accessibility simply levels the playing field. There are no good or justifiable reasons to render most sites inaccessible.
How would you feel if someone said to you, "I know I could have built my site so you can buy your groceries without needing help, but I couldn't be bothered learning how so instead you'll have to rely on a friend/relative/carer to do it for you. It must feel good having to rely on others when at your fingertips is a way to be able to do it yourself."
Its all about setting a reasonable standard.
Nobody who's reading this has a site that is accessable by Every handicapped person.
Following accessibility guidelines doesn't just help the disabled; it makes sites more usable for "normal" folks. Again the biggest myth out there is that accessibility is hard or requires extra work. If it requires extra work to make a site accessible during the development process than the developer is doing something wrong.
To me one of the greatest scams a web development firm can do is to charge extra to make a site accessible. When I was helping to oversee a web development project the company I was working for had contracted out to a third-party, that third-party kept trying to make accessibility sound really hard and complicated such that they could charge extra for this service. It was complete garbage and simply a ploy to milk more money out of the company I was working for.
This is no different the garbage extra fees web developers try charge to ensure websites support different browsers. With practice it is no harder to code to W3C specifications and to be able to ensure that a website works correctly on all browsers than it is to get a site to work correctly on only MSIE; and presumably anyone who calls them self a professional web developer gets plenty of practice.
I suspect that if case law was built up that showed the ADA applied to the web and that web developers could end up being dragged into ADA lawsuits, we would pretty quickly see an end to the practice of inflating development costs to cover basic levels of accessibility.
The real problem with making ecommerce sites accessible isn't companies like Target. The problem is the bad advice provided by web developers and the inflated fees web development firms charge for these "special" services. In the long run it might actually save money for companies who want to do the right thing if case law was built up that showed commercial websites were bound by ADA requirements as web developers would have to make accessibility part of their normal development process rather than an extra service with an additional fee.
Sorry let me rephrase that. People do not want separate sites because separate sites rarely get updated as regularly and most blind users will tell you they feel they get given less information.Why should they have to cope with separate, crappy text-only sites when a professional web designer who actually knows what he's doing can make the main site accessible quite easily?
I think the hostility to the whole idea of building well-coded, standards compliant accessible sites points to the reason there needs to be legislation about it. People think they shouldn't have to think about the needs of others, that it's someone else's problem "It's MY shop I can do what I like" or "let them go to another shop if they can't access mine" but not only are 80% of websites NOT ACCESSIBLE so going somewhere else is not an option in most cases, but general social concern suggests that people simply should think about others. You know, in the 19th century they had to pass legislation to require children up to the age of 16 to go to school. The parents didn't want it because they wanted their kids working in factories and bringing in money. At the time it was considered a blow to the free market. Today, we realise education is invaluable and can be thankful that we were given that nudge towards something that benefitted society as a whole.
Does every book ever published HAVE to be available in braile? Nope, so why does my website HAVE to be the electronic equivalent?
It doesn't. And nowhere in this topic does it state that. We're talking about basic html guidelines here and nothing else. If the guidelines for developing a website were followed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Developers, designers, consultants, etc. cannot continue to design as if it were 1995. The year is 2006. One of the biggest and most important things one can do is to learn basic html, the elements, the attributes, what each one means and how it makes a page whole. And then, one will need to learn basic CSS. With an external style sheet and NO inline styling and/or presentational markup, you've covered a very large part of the accessibility issue. As long as a user can override your stylesheet, you are leaps and bounds ahead of those who have pages full of <font> and/or inline styling.
Relying on HTML only to provide structure and using CSS to provide layout control and design opened up a whole new world of options to me. Suddenly I could make all pages of a website printer friendly with doing no more than adding one simple style sheet and creating two classes ("PrintOnly" & "NoPrint"). It even made SEO much easier because I could separate the position of objects on a rendered webpage from their position in the source code. Now the most important part of a page (e.g. the body content) is one of the first things to appear in the source code and less important things (e.g. menus) appear at the end of the source code. This works really well from an accessibility stance in that a user of a text only browser (e.g. dynamic Braille display) doesn't have to wade through menu links to get to the core content and when they have completed reading the content of a page the menu links are then provided to them to encourage them to continue on to other pages of my site.
With my home brewed CMS I use for many of my websites I don't even need to redesign the HTML source when creating new sites, I simply rearrange the design of the site using style sheets. This means I can accomplish in a half day what used to take me days to complete.
Don't get me wrong, I agree one should indeed make the effort. I can't give links here but look on the bottom of my site and you'll see the little WC3 thingy, albeit only on the core pages as I had to pay someone to get them that good. I use a WYSIWYG thingy, html is not my strongpoint.
On the flip side if it were shown that ADA laws do apply to the web then developers of HTML development software like the WYSIWYG editor you use would be forced to make their software better such that it did a better job of creating accessible web pages without the user of said software needing HTML to be their strong point.
Likewise, just what kind of "damages" is this kid expecting? Pray tell what *harm* he came to by not being able to shop at some specific shop?
How is it more moral to FORCE a storekeeper to cater to a specific group, than to simply not provide websites that the blind can see? The blind cannot see, they are NOT equal in the seeing aspect.
The whole philosophy behind the development of HTML and CSS was to eliminate any barriers between people using different devices and with different physical abilities. It takes no more effort to design a site that is interoperable (works on different devices) and completely accessible than it does to create a site that only works correctly in MSIE using a video monitor and mouse.
Let me say this very clearly. It is inexcusable for professional web developers to create sites that require specific web browsers and/or are not accessible. Failure to make a site accessible violates the very tenants upon which the World Wide Web was designed and built.
It's ironic: if the first thing some folks had heard about accessibility was that the techniques are a reliable shortcut to better SEO, they'd be all over it thinking, "I gotta learn how to do that."
Want to read an excellent SEO Book?[w3.org...]
This really is the best SEO source on the web.As someone pointed out earlier, if Target had immediately started trying to change they would actually open themselves up to a lawsuit in any case.
If they had immediately started to work towards fixing their accessibility issues to begin with when those issues were raised BEFORE the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit there would have been no grounds for the lawsuit. In addition the plaintiffs did try to work with Target outside of the legal system to resolve this issue before filing the lawsuit. The goal wasn't to get lots of money out of Target. The goal was to get target to make their website assessable.--reason for edit--
typos.[edited by: KenB at 3:17 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2006]
We're talking about basic html guidelines here and nothing else. If the guidelines for developing a website were followed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Agreed but the question remains...... Are the guidelines for developing Websites a matter of law? Should law makers being forcing html guidlines on us. w3 is not a law making body they are a standards orginization. Please give reasons why yes if you think the law should be involved in forcing standrads on people. I think it is very a very dangerous slope to be standing on.
Offline business are required to put in curb cutouts, elevators, ramps, automatic doors, accessible bathrooms, counter areas of certain heights, etc. Requiring an online business to provide basic levels of accessibility simply levels the playing field. There are no good or justifiable reasons to render most sites inaccessible.
This is so true....... and yet with all these ways of gaining access to the pysical location how would ANY of these examples you gave help a blind person find CoCo puffs or even the cereal isle?
What do brick and mortar stores have to tell a blind person what product they are standing infront of? The answer is NONE! nothing, nadda, nathen, zero, zip. All examples giving are for the disabled but not the blind, a blind man doesn't need a curb cutouts, elevators, ramps, automatic doors, accessible bathrooms, counter areas of certain heights. So tell me what do brick and mortor stores have so that blind people can ID products on the shelves with?
Do you see brail on all the prices and products? Nope you don't, does Walmart get sued for not have brail reading price tags...No they don't so enough of the brick and mortor comparison it is not a valid argument as major brick and mortor stores have no service for the blind that equals what LAW MAKERS are discussing having legally required on your website.
Again I am all for making your site accessable to everyone and the work involved in bring your site up to scratch can be minor unless you are dealing with a high volume of pages, but still a matter of law? No way!
Discrimination? That is a stretch.
[edited by: Demaestro at 3:44 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2006]
I'm a webmaster, not a developer. I build the site how I want it then hire someone to tweak and tune it to WC3 once I'm happy enough after split-testing.
Under this standard should it be illegal for me to test a new page design? In case a blind man walks into it, so's to speak?
I agree, WYSIWYG editors should comply to standards - but in many respects it does. I can make the site look how I want, and that's how it looks to visitors. That's a standard. Pixel perfect.
Ironic that it should be illegal for me to use a WYSIWYG editor, for the "WYS" bit doesn't apply to those that cannot 'S'. Perhaps I need a WYHIWYG?
As for what the internet was founded on, it was a military thing so warmongors could communicate despite bits being broken - it wasn't developed so blind people could shop at target. That for the most part they can is a happy bonus.
Again I stress I have nothing against the principle.
P.
[edited by: encyclo at 2:23 am (utc) on Sep. 15, 2006]
Please give reasons why yes if you think the law should be involved in forcing standrads on people. I think it is very a very dangerous slope to be standing on.
It's a nuisance for an electrician to have to take care to meet the electrical code instead of just slapping any old wires together, but the fact that electrical systems are required by law to meet certain standards is a big part of the reason we can even have this conversation.
[...] so enough of the brick and mortor comparison it is not a valid argument as major brick and mortor stores have no service for the blind that equals [...]
I think that this is a good example as there is one issue that seem to be coming up quite often. It's the amalgamation of disable and blind. The WCGA are there to improve access to websites for the disabled, not just for the blind.
The fact that the plaintif is blind means the site was even less accessible or him than for a person who has restricted mobility. But the site would have been inaccessible for the latter as well as keyboard navigation seemed lacking.
It's a nuisance for an electrician to have to take care to meet the electrical code instead of just slapping any old wires together, but the fact that electrical systems are required by law to meet certain standards is a big part of the reason we can even have this conversation.
Wow this is the silliest line of comparison ever! A bad elecrtical job can cause fires and is a hazard to public safety and property. Electrical wiring permits aren't about standards at all they are about public safety, please don't say that a website working with a screen reader is a matter of public safety. That is the biggest stretch ever.
Like I said there is NO product reader for the blind REQUIRED BY LAW at ANY brick and mortor store, let alone a standard for product reading in brick and mortar stores.
So why the constent comparison? People keep saying stores have to do make consessions in the physical world for the blind to shop at stores. I am saying there are no such consessions, so these lines of parallel comparison to me seem mute. There is no legally required product reader for the blind in pysical stores. So why have it for websites?
You're missing the point that the standards faciliitate all sorts of interconnectivity that wouldn't be possible if every electrical company took their own approach. The standards create value that is quite separate from the issue of safety.
No you are missing the difference between standards and legally required safety guidelines.
It is a legally required safety guidline to make sure all live wires are secured and grounded with no bare exposures.
It is a standard to use red wiring for live and white wiring for grounds. Not legally required
However it is legally required that you have the legend of the wiring mapped out, But you can CHOOSE to not use the standard. You can CHOOSE to use green for live and black for ground. Just as long as you meet the legal guidline of mapping it.
Do you understand the difference between a standard and a legally required safety guidline?
[edited by: Demaestro at 5:01 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2006]
Just as long as you meet the legal guidline of mapping it.
In other words, you can do what you want as long as you identify things clearly so people can tell what they are.
That's a big part of what accessibility concerns are about.
No you are missing the difference between standards and legally required safety guidelines.It is a legally required safety guidline to make sure all live wires are secured and grounded with no bare exposures.
It is a standard to use red wiring for live and white wiring for grounds. Not legally required
With that said, I would agree that electricians are a poor comparison to web developers.
A more applicable comparable profession may be an interpreter or medical transcriptionist. In many areas these professionals are required to be licensed/certified and we would expect these individuals to maintain a specific level of professionalism.
Ideally there would be no need for laws regarding web development, but history has shown there do need to be laws to protect/enable those with disabilities. Think of how hard big companies like McDonald's fought against building the most basic levels of accessibility into their stores (e.g. curb cutouts). It was senseless, it took no more effort to add a curb cutout in the sidewalk and eliminate steps to the door when constructing new facilities, yet they fought against it every step of the way. Businesses like McDonald's did not add these basic levels of accessibility to their stores until it was mandated by law.
Given the fact of how long web development accessibility guidelines have been in existence, the fact that the WWW was designed from the ground up to be accessible and given the current state of the accessibility of sites like Target's it is all too apparent that these guidelines will not be taken seriously until they are required by law. Hopefully it can be done by applying existing laws without needing to write new laws.
Accessibility guidelines are in the end about creating more opportunities for those with disabilities like blindness, and affording them more opportunities to lead a more normal life. In short this is about basic human dignity and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In the end the basic levels of website accessibility asked for in the lawsuit against Target and we have been talking about here does not add any extra costs or burdens to the website development process but it would make a tremendous difference in the lives of millions of people who are blind or have other disabilities that preclude their ability to use traditional input/output devices like a mouse and video display.
In other words, you can do what you want as long as you identify things clearly so people can tell what they are.
No, quite trying to put words in my post, the reason for the mapping is a safety issue for anyone who comes along after the fact and needs to do wiring work. Again this an issue of safety of the worker, not an issue of FORCING industry standards onto businesses.
Actually electrical codes (e.g. law) require the use of specific color codes for wiring in most areas.
Actually I don't think that is the case, there may be a few states that this is true but I don't think so. I can speak for Canada when I say that color specific wires is not regualted by law.
In any event standards that are in place for public safety are law for that reason, the safety of the public. Screen readers hardly qualify as a matter of public saftey.
Accessibility guidelines are in the end about creating more opportunities for those with disabilities like blindness, and affording them more opportunities to lead a more normal life. In short this is about basic human dignity and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sure this is absolutely true, so I will ask again, what brick and mortar equivilent to they have for the blind to identify products or even the isles? The answer is still none. And yet they want to FORCE you to do these things on your website.
This isn't about access. Anyone can access the Target website by typing in the URL. It isn't like there is code denying entry to a blind person.
A blind person has as much access to Target's physical store as they do the website. Just once in, that person can't see any of the products or purchase them and so they will always require assitence to do so. So why force this law onto ecommerce sites and not the actual store itself? Why force this at all? And don't say access because as I have pointed out they have access.
This is a true story........
The other day I was at 7-11 getting a Slurpee and this gentleman who was in a wheelchair and seemed to have very limited control over only 1 arm( the other didn't seem to do what he wanted it to) rolled up with a huge cup on his lap. He asked if I would fill his cup with pepsi slush which I gladly did he wheeled over to the counter and had the teller remove his change purse and get the amount needed and provided him change and then hheld the door open for him.
Now do you think that it should be required by law that this man be able to accses the Slurpee machine without assitance? Should 7-11 be sued for discrimination?
Of course not.
That fact is he has limitations and so therfor requires help from others. I am all for making his life easier, there were ramps to allow him access and wide dors that made his chair easy to get through and into the store, but there is only so much 7-11 can do. They can't make everything available to him.
I am sure if a blind man came in and was all ready for a nice slush still would have had to ask someone which level was the one for pepsi. Should 7-11 be sued over Slurpee machine access?
If we go passing laws everytime someone with a disability feels slighted because he can't do something that everyone else can do then we are going to spend a lot of time and money that would be better served elsewhere.
Imagine if under this precendent someone sued an online gaming site because they don't have in game vocals describing what is on the screen. It would be insne and yet they would have legal grounds based on this judgement.
We should be helping these people and making their life easier, but like it was said already, not with a gun to our head, or more to the point, not under threat of being sued for discrimination or being prosecuted by law.
[edited by: Demaestro at 7:02 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2006]
In other words, you can do what you want as long as you identify things clearly so people can tell what they are.
Of course the whole color mapping thing would have no benefits to someone who was blind.
Then we'd have to require all the electrical maps to have braille
The question is, where is the line drawn between the rights of business owners (not government regulated occupations such as an electrician or medical transcriptionist) to pick and choose their clientele and the rights of the disabled in their "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness"?
Not being able to shop at Target will not kill you. Bad wiring or the wrong prescription will.
That being said, the current standards being requested for passing as law are not difficult, and should (IMO) be required by commercial institutions operating via the web. If it was something more critical to the design of the site such as having to use a specific language or designing a disabled-friendly sister site, then I could see room to complain. Hey what's the verdict on Javascript here anyway? Can the screen readers parse it?
There should also be some exemption criteria placed in the law as well though, or at least some kind of extension process. As mentioned some people who own commercial websites are just not tech savvy, and considering their financial status at the time they may not be able to hire a web developer to make changes. Obviously as a web designer I am biased and think it's a walk in the park. Others aren't quite so lucky so you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I am pissed at Target for being this stupid and they won't see my $$, Walmart pissed me off 10 years ago and I haven't set foot inside since. I don't care how cheap the toothpaste is. Even better is to call Target and let them know they lost your business and why.
Court and tax dollars not required.
[edited by: Demaestro at 7:27 pm (utc) on Sep. 14, 2006]
The question is, where is the line drawn between the rights of business owners (not government regulated occupations such as an electrician or medical transcriptionist) to pick and choose their clientele and the rights of the disabled in their "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness"?
Actually as I understand the law and the issues being discussed, that is not the question. I believe that question is covered by long-settled law. In fact, I would say that this, like most of the nay-sayers in this thread, characterizes the problem in entirely the wrong way.
The existing law seems to provide that (among other things) no barriers should be erected that might prevent access by the disabled to otherwise accessible locations. It's not permissible, for example, for a business move to a new place of business that's already fully accessible--say it has a to-code wheelchair ramp--and render it less accessible--say by removing the ramp to improve the appearance of the store. I think this is relatively uncontroversial.
The web--as has been repeatedly pointed out--was intended from the outset to be accessible by a wide range of useragents with a wide range of capabilities. It was, in other words, purpose-built to be an accessible place. What's at issue here is whether or not it is permissible for web-businesses based in jurisdictions covered by the ADA to needlessly create barriers to accessibility--and as I've already mentioned in this thread, to make basic html inaccessible is the result of deliberate omissions or incompetence.*
-b
*A note to anyone who feels insulted by this word: there's nothing at all insulting about the word; for example, I'm not really a competent machinist. The point is that if I were running a business that relied in some way on machined parts, I'd have to learn or I'd have to hire somebody who is competent in that trade.
The question is, where is the line drawn between the rights of business owners (not government regulated occupations such as an electrician or medical transcriptionist) to pick and choose their clientele and the rights of the disabled in their "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness"?
In the instance of labeling goods in a physical store for the blind, the most reasonable accommodation may be for the store to make an employee available who can assist the individual rather than labeling all of the goods on the shelf in Braille (which most sighted people could not be sure were labeled correctly). At the same token it is very easy to make product labeling accommodations on a website by simply using the accessibility features designed into HTML & CSS in the first place.
What ever happened to good old public outcry and consumer boycotting?
Why do we always have to run to a court and ask for monetary compensation?
I haven't found reference to the amount of damages being requested although it does include legal fees.
If he really wanted to stick it to them he would have gone to the press, instead he went to his lawyer. I question his reasoning, and still don't feel this is a matter for lawmakers.
Since there has been a great deal of discussion about this but no documented references to the case I thought it was prudent to provide a link to the legal filing for this case:
[dralegal.org...]
More information about this case can be found at:
[dralegal.org...]
I believe that question is covered by long-settled law.
It doesn't cover where the line is drawn, because that seems to be moving everyday. Prior to this, there was a verdict handed down that the disabilities act does not cover websites.
[news.com.com ]
Now they are changing all that. Hence, line moved. I just want to know when it stops moving.
Now, again, I am IN FAVOR of the requested changes to the law. No big deal, just some alt tags and keyboard navigation. But there has to be limits. Next they'll start wanting the in-store readers like Demaestro is talking about, tomorrow everyone will have to learn braille and sign language. I'm not against giving the disabled a leg up on things but it has to stop somewhere.
I look at it this way. Suppose the website doesn't seem to have what the person is looking for in the first place. Then they could do one of two things:
A. Call customer support and ask
or
B. Shop somewhere else
Or they could even ask someone near them for some help. In some cases yes, we are "enabling" people to continue their daily routines. However, what many people are arguing here is that disabled people are incapable of finding another method, and I think that is untrue.
An alternative to (or maybe an addition to) the policy is to have a click-to-call button on the home page of a commercial website and have technology that connects the disabled person's computer to their telephone (speakerphone) so human assistance can be easily accessible.
Hey I'm trying to come up with something too. Give me credit at least for that. I just don't want to wake up in the future to everything being on a ramp and every box of cereal needing to be in braille. Give an inch, take a mile, whatever disabled or not. Technology has enabled these people's lives %10000000 percent more since half a century ago so don't tell me they still have it so rough and/or that I am discriminating against them. The only reason I am even agreeing with the current legislature (provided it is as transparent as alt tags and mouseless navigation) is that it is quite easy to implement (for me) so we shouldn't be crying about it. But now I'm discrminating against poor website owners who don't know a lick of HTML. Go figure.
But now I'm discrminating against poor website owners who don't know a lick of HTML. Go figure.
What is the difference between these and a business owner hiring a qualified web developer? Nothing. We can't be experts in everything and as such we should rely on competent professionals for those things we don't have the skills necessary to do correctly ourselves.
to make basic html inaccessible is the result of deliberate omissions or incompetence.*
Actually no.... think about the techincal aspect of it all. To make the HTML inaccessible one has to put some barriers in place as ANY website that has a DNS lookup is accessable to the public. The person in question has the same access to the HTML as any of us.
The issue isn't access, the user had access to the site, the problem was that his browser didn't function as he would have liked it to.
No barriers were put in place.
While Target is obviously grossly incompetant in this matter, they shouldn't be required by law to put alt values in their images tags.
Actually no.... think about the techincal aspect of it all. To make the HTML inaccessible one has to put some barriers in place as ANY website that has a DNS lookup is accessable to the public. The person in question has the same access to the HTML as any of us.The issue isn't access, the user had access to the site, the problem was that his browser didn't function as he would have liked it to.
No barriers were put in place.
Someone mentioned fear due to ignorance - yep, damn right, because when it become a legal matter it rapidly devolves into something you "need" a lawyer to even understand let alone implement.
Someone mentioned that Bob's personal homepage wouldn't be affected cos it would come under 'freedom of speech'. OK, heads up, only the US, 5% of the world's population, has any "free speech" protection, secondly your sites are available to Europe and so on, thirdly, how is it less discriminatory if Peter the blind chap gets lost or messed up on Bob's site than any other?
Put it this way, if Bob opens up a personal website saying how much he hates black people, does he slide past anti-discrimination laws because he's not selling anything? No.
So where's the logic of thinking this will not, now or in the near future, hit personal sites?
If Peter's reader thingy goes all screwy and Peter cannot tell what he's doing or where he is because he hit your messy homepage, how is that less confusing, intimidating, restrictive or generally "discriminatory", if we're to use the D word in relation to not trying hard enough to cater to blind people?
Yes, laws are fear-inducing, that's the point of them. I mentioned a gun to your head, someone agreed with that and then said "more to the point" that you could be sued or fined. No, understand this point, THAT IS THE GUN TO YOUR HEAD.
Try breaking a law, then refusing to pay the fine, then refusing to be arrested and refusing to be jailed?
What's the first thing the nice policeman and his friends will do? Stick a very real, very loaded gun to your head.
Any law, no matter how minor, IS backed up by a GUN to your head. That is exactly what a law is, a rule that if necessary will be enforced at gunpoint to ensure you comply.
Think of the big robot in the first Robocop - "You have nine seconds to comply... you have six seconds to comply.."
That is what the law is. The threat of lethal force to ensure you comply, be it paying a fine, going to jail or doing what you were told in the first place - but try and resist and bottom line the gun is there.
Whenever you pass ANY law, you are pointing a gun. Period.
Further, once there's a law, there's a pack of laughing lawyers around it, making it os obscure it cannot be understood. How long before we get a 60 page fine-print document that you must comply with?
How long before the onus on providing suitable facilities falls on YOU, not the web-reader software?
Why should a blind man have to pay for special software, when the technology is there for YOU to provide the audio etc?
How long before you need a *license* to run a commercial website?
How long before you need a license to run ANY website?
How long before that undermines anything you thought you had in the way of free speech?
I'm VASTLY more in favor of letting the market handle it. We already have commercial software that can scan suitable sites, why not develop that software further? Why not put this non-profit's money to better use advising on the SEO advantages of accessability? Just the other day I got an email from some SEO site talking about the advantages of providing audio on your site, one of those little talking head things. If conventional browsers moved in the direction of speaking the site, we'd all be keen on ensuring our sites were ready for such browsers.
But instead of pushing in such directions they have targetted Target, 'negotiated' (at gunpoint) for 10 months and are now pulling the trigger, bringing the government into it.
Once a legal precedent is set, YOU are legally obliged to provide a suitable website, regardless of the site. There's a gun to your head.
Bottom line this does far more to confuse, intimidate and restrict access to the web for small webmasters than any good it does for the percentage of the population that is blind.
As populations age and their eyesight fades, as technology moves on and companies look for an edge, there are great incentives for newer better ways of presenting web data - but we just killed any innovation because now everyone must follow a strict text-based formula or they're BREAKING THE LAW.
Where there's a need the market will find a solution, faster, cheaper and better than any committee can dictate. But we just stuck a gun in the face of the market and said "Go this way or else".
Congratulations for helping the internet develop.
P.
I often enjoy a good debate but as we're here to facilitate discussion of a helpful nature, there is little point in winning or even engaging in debate, even if I feel understanding my point of view could allow someone to see that ultimately the web is better off without being dictated to by narrow-defined standards enforced by law.
Few like to admit it but much of the technology that has driven the net forward came from porn. To me that is how it should be, the market will forever seek better ways of using the technology and is actually hampered by being forced to work in fixed ways.
That's all I need say, I'm here to learn rather than inflict my view upon those upset by them.
Have a nice day.
P.
Someone mentioned that Bob's personal homepage wouldn't be affected cos it would come under 'freedom of speech'. OK, heads up, only the US, 5% of the world's population, has any "free speech" protection, secondly your sites are available to Europe and so on, thirdly, how is it less discriminatory if Peter the blind chap gets lost or messed up on Bob's site than any other?
Put it this way, if Bob opens up a personal website saying how much he hates black people, does he slide past anti-discrimination laws because he's not selling anything? No.
So where's the logic of thinking this will not, now or in the near future, hit personal sites?
If Peter's reader thingy goes all screwy and Peter cannot tell what he's doing or where he is because he hit your messy homepage, how is that less confusing, intimidating, restrictive or generally "discriminatory", if we're to use the D word in relation to not trying hard enough to cater to blind people?
How long before the onus on providing suitable facilities falls on YOU, not the web-reader software?
Why should a blind man have to pay for special software, when the technology is there for YOU to provide the audio etc?
How long before you need a *license* to run a commercial website?
How long before you need a license to run ANY website?
How long before that undermines anything you thought you had in the way of free speech?
I'm VASTLY more in favor of letting the market handle it.
"Free enterprise left totally free will destroy itself."
"We've got freedom mixed up with business. Some proponents of free enterprise talk about it as if they are saying that Catholicism is the only true religion."
He has some other really applicable quotes to your comment, but they may be seen as too political by moderators.
We already have commercial software that can scan suitable sites, why not develop that software further?
Why not put this non-profit's money to better use advising on the SEO advantages of accessability?
Once a legal precedent is set, YOU are legally obliged to provide a suitable website, regardless of the site. There's a gun to your head.
Bottom line this does far more to confuse, intimidate and restrict access to the web for small webmasters than any good it does for the percentage of the population that is blind.
As populations age and their eyesight fades, as technology moves on and companies look for an edge, there are great incentives for newer better ways of presenting web data - but we just killed any innovation because now everyone must follow a strict text-based formula or they're BREAKING THE LAW.
Where there's a need the market will find a solution, faster, cheaper and better than any committee can dictate. But we just stuck a gun in the face of the market and said "Go this way or else".
Congratulations for helping the internet develop.
It seems some people are upset at my viewpoint.
