National Federation of the Blind Sueing Target

[toicontien]

From USA Today -- "... the site [Target.com] lacks certain coding — found on many other websites — that would activate software to allow blind computer users to hear audio descriptions of what is on Internet pages. ... The case draws national attention because it could have implications for virtually every retailer and business in the USA that operates a website. The case also fuels a wider debate starting to play out in courtrooms: whether anti-discrimination laws apply to the Internet."

-- National Federation of the Blind files Target lawsuit (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-25-blind_x.htm)

Web accessibility in the United States keeps becoming a larger and larger issue. Especially since 99.9% of the sites used by most Americans could be considered inaccessible. The legal march toward accessibility continues. Some other USA Today tidbits:

The blind left behind (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-04-24-blind-leftout_x.htm)

Travel Web sites agree to be accessible to blind (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-08-20-lowsighted-sites_x.htm)

[netbuddy]

I totally agree, allot of websites do not take into account that a large percentage of users are either Blind or have partial sight. Whilst every bit is done for people with other physical disabilities, the Blind and Partially internet users are left out.

This opens the door for the vendors of software and people like Macromedia (flash & shockwave) will need to do something about their product to ensure that they will meet the new requirements.

The internet was at one time an ideal medium for the Blind and partially sighted but since the explosion of various technologies and graphical nature of the internet, this group of users have been left out of the picture completely.

Sooner that this requirement is implemented, the better.

[Mr Initial Man]

What about sites that are, by nature, unusable by blind people? Such as webcomics, art galleries, flash sites, video sites?

[toicontien]

That's been a debate that nobody has won yet.

* Web Comics: You may be able to create a page that explains the background of each character, how they dress, etc. Then maybe use a table beneath the comic that has one cell per comic pane and have the text in that in a definition list for what each character is saying, or what is happening in that pane.

* Art Galleries: If it's an inherently visual medium, then people with vision problems aren't going to derive less information on the Web than what they would get in an art gallery.

* Flash Sites: I've heard there are ways to make Flash accessible, but I've never tinkered with it. Since Flash is an application, it can be programmed to be accessible. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Macromedia (now Adobe) claims it is, I think.

* Video Sites: One word: captioning. Regardless of whether or not your site is a video site, or your site uses a video, it should be captioned in the video, and have a text-only transcript available. Same thing for audio. This is specified in the WCAG 1.0.

[grumpyoldtechs]

I agree with this 100%.

too man websites don't do anything to accommodate for people with disabilities i recently wrote a few articles about it.

http://www.grumpyoldtechs.co.uk/john/?cat=4

i am writing a dissertation on this. and will be doing allot of research over the next 2 years into discrimination of people with disabilities on the internet.

[Robert Wellock]

"Reasonable Adjustment" are the keywords.