CNET News: Blind patrons sue Target for site inaccessibility

[toicontien]

Blind patrons sue Target for site inaccessibility (http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6038123.html)
National Federation of the Blind sues Target over Web site accessibility problems after negotiations broke down in January. I still see a prevailing feeling that Web Accessibility means making special adjustments for a very small number of people. Soon we will see this isn't true, and that it's not extra work. Web accessibility should be part of the Base Service when designing a Web site. No extra charge.

[ErolinDesigns]

I agree that each image should have an alt tag, but why sue??

I believe that suit has no merit and that there are other ways of getting websites to recognize the disabled. I haven't heard of a lawsuit from the blind to Ford or GM for vehicles for the blind.

[toicontien]

The problem was that Target refused to accomodate them. If you notice in the story, and what I wrote, the group contacted Target May 2005 about the problems, and those negotiations broke down January of this year. This lawsuit occured because Target wasn't willing to cooperate. Not because blind people are vengefull.

[ErolinDesigns]

Wow. Totally missed that point.

But I also read that the system they used was developed by an outside source, the same source that developed Amazon's website. Shouldn't they be in the same boat?

[Robert Wellock]

Another problem was a mouse was required to order anything at all and it couldn't be done via keyboard! The main point was they weren't prepared to make "reasonable adjustments" even after being asked.

[toicontien]

Wow. Totally missed that point.

But I also read that the system they used was developed by an outside source, the same source that developed Amazon's website. Shouldn't they be in the same boat?
That depends on how much control Target has over the markup. The real issue is the HTML, CSS and JavaScript involved -- the client side of things.

[DaveSW]

Hopefully that will wake a few people up to be a bit more accomodating!

[toicontien]

And yet the article noted an appellate case the judges upheld a previous decision that the ADA doesn't apply to Web sites. Even the judges said this should be revisited. Their basic complaint was that the ADA explicitly applies to physical spaces, not cyber spaces.

[Robert Wellock]

They'll think of any loophole won't they? Surely the are a "Provider of Service" though and hence have legal obligations? Next they'll say TV doesn't need to be accessible in any form, or warn about fast strobe light.