backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 70 comment(s) - last by prceklp.. on Feb 21 at 11:27 AM
If your site has image-map tags or images without alternative text, you could be next

The California Association of Blind Students set its sights on Target.com as part of the first salvo against websites that do not support software capable of interpreting text on the screen for blind readers.  The lawsuit claims "Target thus excludes the blind from full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of daily life."

Blind Advocacy groups believe the lawsuit against Target is valid on the premise that eCommerce websites must uphold the same disability standards as the brick and mortar counterparts.  When websites use image maps and lack alt-text for images on the site, reader software developed for blind people stops functioning correctly.  Federal laws governing disabled patron access to eCommerce websites do not exist in the US yet. 

Target.com, DailyTech.com and AnandTech.com are all examples of websites that use image mapping, but with the Web 2.0 trend, image mapping is just the tip of the iceberg.  AJAX enabled websites, in particular, are completely unusable to viewers with text recognition software due to the dynamic nature of the site content.  Undoubtedly, this is not the last time we will hear about this.


Update from the EIC (02/16/2006):  We have been contacted by the Disablity Rights Advocate legal team since this article was published.  The student who initated the lawsuit is a member of the California Association of Blind Students, but he does not represent the association:

The California Association of Blinds Students did not initiate this litigation and is not an organizational plaintiff in this case. The only organizational plaintiffs are the National Federation of the Blind and the Federation's California chapter.  Bruce Sexton, the UC Berkeley student affiliated with the California Association of Blinds Students, stands as a named plaintiff on behalf of himself and the class named in this case; he is not representing the Association in any formal capacity in this matter.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Is nothing safe?
By AlexWade on 2/12/2006 3:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid of the color red, so I'm going to sue Target for using red colors. Someone looked at me wrong, I'm going to sue them for mental distress.

This country is getting out of control. People are just looking to make easy money without working. We need a law to stop stupid stuff like this.




RE: Is nothing safe?
By Exodus220 on 2/12/2006 3:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you should sue for the color red because if you were blind like the people in the article then you would not know what the color red is or that Target even uses it


RE: Is nothing safe?
By Furen on 2/12/2006 7:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not everyone is born blind...


Easy Remedy - BRAILE Websites
By Exodus220 on 2/12/2006 9:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is the easiest way to remedy this problem. Web designers just have to start using BRAILE instead of normal text...yeah, that would be the easiest method since the blind no BRAILE anyways.


RE: Easy Remedy - BRAILE Websites
By Furen on 2/12/2006 10:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
haha


RE: Is nothing safe?
By Trippytiger on 2/12/2006 4:10:02 PM , Rating: 3
I'm surprised you're not sympathetic to this - clearly, you must be blind, or you would have read the summary and realised that this isn't about money, it's about companies providing adequate service to handicapped customers.

If you were, say, wheelchair-bound, how would you feel about trying to go shopping at Target only to find that the only way in requires to climb three flights of stairs? This issue is essentially the same.


RE: Is nothing safe?
By Thoreau on 2/12/2006 8:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes... so true!

Let's also find a way for that same handicapped person to go sky diving.

Gimme a break.


RE: Is nothing safe?
By AlexWade on 2/12/2006 10:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
I am sympathetic to blind people. But, this has clearly crossed the line. Okay, so the site isn't W3C compliant, probably most sites aren't. Lets sue them all. This country has gone too litigous. It has to be stopped.


By SurreDeth on 2/12/2006 6:17:13 PM , Rating: 3
Why don't the blind also sue Van Gogh for making Starry Night non-blind accessible?




By MrSmurf on 2/12/2006 6:49:30 PM , Rating: 3
Your analogy is horrible. Nevertheless, a lawsuit has to be completely frivilous to be sued for malicious prosecution not to mention you have to prove malice.

Blind people should have a right to view major corperate websites... is it worth suing over? Sometimes you have to sue to get things changed. If there is no law forcing Target to obey any law regarding this complaint it'll probably be tossed out.


By MScrip on 2/12/2006 8:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blind people should have a right to view major corporate websites...


Blind people should have the right to view anything ... but they can't! They're blind. Tough break. Who can they sue because they can't see at all?

There are certain things you can't do because you're blind... maybe online shopping is one of them.

It's an easy fix, though. Target, get your act together and make your website accessible. End of story.


By Decaydence on 2/12/2006 8:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blind people should have a right to view major corperate websites


There are so many things wrong with this statement. I'm hoping I don't have to point out the fact that blind people aren't "viewing" anything. Furthermore, you must have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights. No external force is preventing these people from viewing Targets website. Nowhere in the constitution does it state or imply that all people, regardless of physical or mental defect, shall have the God-given right to shop on Target.com. No rights have been violated. No one has the inherant right to access any website belonging to a private entity.

Target has put a website up that anyone can view. Blind people can't view anything. Just because the result of these two facts ends up being blind people can't view Target's website doesn't mean that Target is discriminating or violating anyone's rights. It just means that blind people are in a horrible situation.

Blind people can't see the post I'm now typing, so I must be purposely excluding them, right? What horrible people we all are, including the self-righteous among us, to be violating the rights of the poor blind people. And how about mandarin speaking individuals? They have the right to understand and contribute to this thread and the Target website. Why don't they sue as well? Maybe everyone should stop forcing the burden of our own limitations on everyone else?


By ColossusX on 2/12/2006 11:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
what an idiot! Do you know any blind people? Most likely not. I have a very close friend who is legally blind, but with the use of a very large monitor and the very software mentioned in this article, can surf the web easily. So, yes, blind people can view things. They can view your ignorance too. And unlike you, doesnt just use the web for free p0rn.
Because of the ADA, blind people have rights for access to businesses. Since Target.com is integral to Targets business model, it should fall under the ADA.

Target is not a private entity, but a public corporation, which is a little different from your really cool myspace site.

One can only hope that you are not afflicted with a disability so that you dont have to face the ignorance and intolerance of people like you.


By Decaydence on 2/13/2006 12:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
First off, lets not pretend people with really bad eye sight are blind just because the label they are given is legally blind. The definition of the word "blind" is "sightless". The word sightless indicates the inability to view.

Furthermore, you have a complete lack of understanding when it comes to what defines a "public corporation". They consider it public only because the public can invest in the corporation through stock if they choose to. This doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that they answer to the people or some other rediculous assumption. Because they aren't a public institution (i.e. post office, town hall) they are considered, say it with me, a private entity. By the way, the ADA does not cover access to web sites by the blind.

This brings me to another definition that you may be unaware of. Ignorance: The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. Now, you label me as ignorant because you disagree with my stance on this subject, yet you fill your rebuttal with misinformation and a complete lack of understanding of any fact. Take your rediculous generalizations and rudimentary understanding of the world elsewhere, the adults are having a conversation.


A line must be drawn
By Decaydence on 2/12/2006 4:53:45 PM , Rating: 4
I'm all for making sure that the handicapped are accommodated in such a way that they can live their daily lives successfully. I agree with the need to make sure their are ramps and other such measures. However, at some point the handicapped have to realize that, even if it isn't their fault, they need to take responsibility for their situation.

There are plenty of aspects of computers that blind people can't take advantage of. This isn't because of a flaw with computers, it's because of a flaw in the person's ability to see. Does that mean we have to dumb down the computer experience to the point at which a blind person can use it? Or does it simply mean that we do what we can to allow them to take advantage of some aspect of the experience?

I understand this is far from an apt comparison to the situation at hand in this article, but I use it to convey an overall theme; why not accept that certain things that aren't necessities are just not available to certain people? No one will be unable to live their lives because they can't shop online. I'm tall, does that mean I sue small car makers? Or clothing makers that don't make my size? Should fat people sue to make marathons shorter? Should dumb people sue to make certain books easier to read? Should people without arms sue multiple entities for the ability to drive any car with thier feet? I consider driving a much more important activity than ordering bath towels online.

Bottom line is, we all must accept that we can't do certain things, but as long as those things aren't a necessity for our survival, we should probably just deal with it.




RE: A line must be drawn
By Perium on 2/12/2006 5:05:10 PM , Rating: 3
You have to agree for a blind person shopping online would be much easier then getting someone to drive them to the store and walk with them. You do also make some good points, if we make concessions what point do we stop?


RE: A line must be drawn
By NFS4 on 2/12/2006 5:12:36 PM , Rating: 3
Identify theft and online ecommerce scams are bad enough for people with two working eyes, imagine the risk for a blind person?

You'd be better off getting someone to drive you to the store and picking up something yourself or getting someone to order it online for you.

There are just some facts of life that we have to deal with.


Lots of ignorant comments here.
By plinden on 2/12/2006 6:54:59 PM , Rating: 3
If I may insult most of the people who commented here, and I think I may, I have seldom come across such ignorance and thoughtlessness on any subject.

If you've worked on developing an enterprise level website, and I have, there are a number of guidelines you can follow that make it easy for special browsers to present the webpage to the blind. Such simple practices as using XHTML and CSS to separate presentation from content, using alts and longdesc in img tags, and using tabindex to move through form inputs, don't make it any harder to develop the website, and don't cause any "dumbing down".

If you really want to continue wallowing in your ignorance, don't bother going to http://www.w3.org/WAI/




RE: Lots of ignorant comments here.
By iamright on 2/12/2006 7:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
simple practices as using XHTML and CSS to separate presentation from content, using alts and longdesc in img tags, and using tabindex to move through form inputs, don't make it any harder to develop the website, and don't cause any "dumbing down".

If that was the case there would be no issue here! Target obviously made the website with $$$ in mind not blind rights.

The issue is that blind people don't have the right to force anyone to cater to them for any reason. People are not equal and never will be.
Any attempt to equalize must be voluntary not forced.


RE: Lots of ignorant comments here.
By scabby on 2/12/2006 9:11:38 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately for you, and us, you're wrong. Check out www.ada.gov. Let me quote the ADA twice:

1) The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications.
2) Public accommodations must comply with basic nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment. They also must comply with specific requirements related to architectural standards for new and altered buildings; reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures; effective communication with people with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities; and other access requirements.


That's not to say that they'll win the lawsuit. I see a couple of major impediments to their suit:

1) A website is not a brick and mortar establishment and is not literally covered by the ADA.
2) A website, by its very nature, is a visual presentation. To me, this is a lot like suing the book company for not making all their books subtitled in braille, when in fact, blind people need literally a different presentation that culminates in an entirely different product.

I hope the suit doesn't work, not because I dislike blind people, but because someone needs to step up and create a better standard for text-to-speech. I'm working with this stuff right now, and it's generally crap. Some of the voice fonts sound a lot better, but they definitely need work.


By Decaydence on 2/12/2006 8:35:19 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure rollercoaster operators could take a week or so and develop a harness for people without torso's. That doesn't change the fact that, if they don't want to, they shouldn't have to.

Your razor sharp focus on the technical side of this issue has blinded you to the fact that the legal system is being exploited in this case. If people are pissed about Target not designing their website so that less than 1% of the population can purchase undies without going to a brick-and-mortar, then they can boycott Target. What they shouldn't do is manufacture rights and then start suing people.

By the way, when you say these steps "don't make it any harder to develop the website", you make it very clear that you don't understand that not doing something is always much easier than doing something. Maybe you should sue whatever entity you worship for not providing you with that basic bit of logic.


Real real real lame analogies here...
By NT78stonewobble on 2/13/2006 3:58:29 AM , Rating: 3
And stupid too.

So the "wealthiest" nation in the world cannot afford to, not cater, but atleast not discriminate people with disabilities?

Because, discrimination is what it is. A perfectly good mind is a perfectly good mind no matter if its in a seeing body or white or black or blind.

If it's possible for someone blind to function normally in a certain situation it should be so. No matter the costs actually (in principle).

I loved the stupid but funny analogy of fat people wanting shorter marathons. Well whats keeping the fat guy from loosing weight and then running a regular one?

Or do you mean the the blind guy could shape up and go unblind?

Hell If there werent any disability laws at all, atleast people who got blind or got any handicaps as a result of an accident would need like 10 times as many money in THEIR lawsuits because they would need people to do everything in the future.

And the woman spilling coffee in her lap. Well, noone agrees in that case. And it was stupid.

Whats it got to do with blind people and discrimination?

To the guy hating that minorities force the government: Well I totally agree. Us rich people should pay zip in taxes... because.

Why would I use an er? I use my regular private hospital?
Why would I pay to the defence ministry? If the country gets invaded I could just move out?
Why should I pay to fund any public schools? Do I use em? No
Why the hell should I pay to let some ole fuck survive? Hell its cheaper if people die at 50 or 60 for the rest of us that is...

On a side note I think it should be quite legal for me to breake someone elses legs and then take his job. That ought to shake up the job market a bit. If i can break his legs ive clearly got the best skills for the job right?




RE: Real real real lame analogies here...
By Decaydence on 2/13/2006 2:53:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Because, discrimination is what it is.


Perhaps you should tell us what discrimination is then. The dictionary defines it as "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice", but you must apparently have the "real" definition. Either that or the corporate fat cats over at Target have such a disdain for the blind that they met secretly with the web designers and said "do whatever it takes to screw over those sightless bastards".

There is a solid trend among all of the posts supporting this litigation; the misuse of terms like "rights", "discrimination", and "intolerance". First, having the freedom to do something, like the visually capable are free to view Targets website, does not equate to an inalienable right to do that thing. There is no indicator or ignorance more profound than someone running around claiming to have a right to things. "I have a right not to be offended", "I have the right to have my kids surf the internet without being able to find porn", "I have the right to know my children can't find offensive material on the TV". These are all examples of people offloading the responsibility of realizing their ideal world to society as a whole; even if it's contrary to the interests of society or individual members of society. If you want a list of your rights I think there might be an old list somewhere; though, seemingly, society has collectively forgotten about the document in which this list resides.

It is not discrimination to not go out of your way to cater to every possible category of people. If a ski area doesn't allow sledding it isn't discriminating against people that can't ski or snowboard. An airline isn't discriminating against people who are afraid to fly. Art museums aren't discriminating against people who can't see. Should a library have a braille copy of every book? Or an audio tape reading of every book? Surely they are discriminating against the blind and the deaf otherwise. *sarcasm*

Finally, "intolerance" has been tossed around in this thread. Nobody claiming that this is rediculous litigation is intolerant of blind people. If a blind person wished to cross a street I would gladly help he or she across. If a blind person was imperilled in any way, I would be the first person to come to their aid. I don't, however, consider their ability to view certain websites as such a drastic social need that suits should be brought forth and organizations and private citizens should be threatend with the power of the law in order to force them to present them with this ability.

In conclusion(finally, I know), some of you need to reel in your visceral reactions to the plight of the blind and look at this situation with the cold gaze of logic. Do I think Target should voluntarily make their site accessible to the blind? I would certainly view that as a nice gesture and would appreciate it on behalf of those people who benefit from such a move. Do I think that they should be punished if they don't? Of course not.


By Decaydence on 2/13/2006 3:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
"no indicator or ignorance" = no indicator of ignorance

Surely they are discriminating against the blind and the deaf otherwise. *sarcasm* - remove "and the deaf", it refers to a sentence I chose not to include.

The one time I don't proofread.....


Conservative Values
By jrogerstn on 2/13/2006 11:05:05 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder if all the kids on here realize that when they argue against frivilous litigation, they are essentially arguing a conservative value... Maybe this is a good indicator for you kids to learn which party supports which values before you jump on the liberitarian bandwagon because of what the "cool people" say... Hope that made sense since I cant go back and edit... :)




RE: Conservative Values
By dmcanally on 2/13/2006 2:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
do you have any clue as to what liberarian values are?


RE: Conservative Values
By dmcanally on 2/13/2006 2:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
libertarian, sorry. thought I had the t in there the first time...


RE: Conservative Values
By Decaydence on 2/13/2006 2:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
do you have any clue as to what libertarian values are?


No, He doesn't.


By iamright on 2/12/2006 6:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
If Target doesn't cater to blind people then they can go shop at some other website. Imagine if all stores were ordered to have equal access rights and customer service. Perhaps if this kind of thing continues our kids will be taught the system of "controlled enterprise" and a government and society "for the special interest groups" "by the special interest groups." Companies operate to make money, making Target.com accessible to the blind will cost them much more than it would make them. The blind community should pay for the upgrades NOT Target and NOT ME! It's like the blind community wants rights for the sake of rights, not for anything useful or valid.




By cplusplus on 2/12/2006 7:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
making Target.com accessible to the blind will cost them much more than it would make them


All that it would probably cost them is a few days (or maybe a week or two) of their webmaster's time to add more code to their websites. It's not like they're asking for a redesign of the whole site. If the technology is there, and it isn't too difficult or expensive to implement, I don't see the problem with telling them that they should do it. History has proven time and time again that sometimes it takes a lawsuit to bring about change.


By metallic on 2/12/2006 9:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
I work for an IT firm that also offers custom programming. Right now, one of my clients has my undivided attention for the next several months working on several custom web applications for them. The cost per week is $6k. Developer time is not cheap.


By Nekrik on 2/12/2006 10:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
The cost would be significantly higher, and there would be added security risks as well. Dev time, testing, beta testing, etc.. isn't cheap. It's not a matter of just a few lines of code being added, and this would be a cost for every online store front. Should the little Mom and Pops type store that can barely make it as it is be shutdown because they can't cater to one specific group? The cost, being there is little benifit to sighted customers, should be picked up by the blind, but I doubt they'd be interested in covering the additional costs.

History has also proven that not every change is a good idea.


HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
By KashGarinn on 2/13/2006 7:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
OMG!

If google and yahoo and the other SEARCH companies can make bots and spiders which EASILY grabs data from the webs, then why can't the software they're using do that???

And they blame the websites????

HOW FUCKING STUPID IS THAT?!

It's as simple as writing a proxy to spider the data on the sites, and convert it to plain text which is understandable to whatever the blind use to browse the net.. It's what google and microsoft already are working on regarding email and webservices through cellphones.

So this is just hilarious! Blame the webcontent instead of the limitations of the program, I'm laughing myself silly here... best article I've read in weeks.

K.




RE: HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
By Mistraal on 2/13/2006 8:45:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's blatantly obvious you don't know how search engine spiders work either.

Googlebot and Slurp etc CANNOT read imagemaps, CANNOT determine what a picture is, CANNOT read how your forms are built.

It is said that Google is the biggest blind man of them all. If a blind mans screenreader used Googlebot's technology it would not get him any further than where he is today.

And for those who say that it would be expensive to add ALT="Image of idiot behind keyboard" to an image tag .... hmm ... that took 1.2 seconds ... wow, I'm rich!


RE: HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
By reiters on 2/13/2006 10:38:00 AM , Rating: 3
Again... A lack of understanding how corporate websites are designed.

Nothing gets put on a corporate website without going to someone who dreams up the wording and they aren't cheap. Then there is a meeting about the wording they chose. Then a meeting about the strategy in implementing the alt tag (is it static or databased etc). Then the code is added. If the database is to be used, the changes to the tables have to go through several steps of design and testing before going back to the web developers. The web developers design the new tags on the test servers. Test for a while. Then move to production and hope that it doesn't conflict with any other project going through the same stages at the same time. Oh, and did I mention the additional bandwidth or the extra load time of the pages. It may not seem like much bandwidth, but people will only wait 15 seconds (statistically) for a page to load. You have to base that on modem users, bacause most of america still uses modems. If you go over the 15 second rule, then you are loosing all the sales from people that leave because of the wait which is an addition expense above the developement expense. Because developers want the nicest looking pages for their 15 seconds, they will push to the very edge of that time frame. Forbid that the design won't allow for that extra time cause then you are talking a total redesign of the site costing hundreds of thousands because you now need artists to design the layout and all the artwork.

This may not sound like the most effectient way of handling the problem, but that's simply the way it is in large corporations. I hate all the red tape, but nobody seems to want to change that.

There is more involved to puting a corporate website together than 99.9% of the public understand. Yes there are the enlightened out there that do but most don't.


Next up...
By Cygni on 2/12/2006 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Next up, blind man sues book for not being written in brail.

This is freaking retarded, and not defendable in any way shape or form. What a joke.




RE: Next up...
By Hacp on 2/12/2006 4:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
next up.. Blind man sues pop up ads for not having sound.


RE: Next up...
By Decaydence on 2/12/2006 5:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
next up, Blind man sues porno companies for not including sexy descriptions of the on-screen action.


LOLzors
By SurreDeth on 2/12/2006 7:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
I guess really large people shouldn't be forced to buy 2 tickets when they can't fit in one seat, they should instead sue the airlines for not having larger seats too accomodate them.





RE: LOLzors
By sieistganzfett on 2/12/2006 8:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
haha. target does not target the blind, fat ppl need to buy 2 tickets to sit since they cant fit in one seat on an aircraft. how do they even sit still, same with in movie theaters, there is the arm rest between seats still that cant move.why dont the blind people who are suing target,sue movies too for not having a way for them to see whats happening in a scene.


This is property rights issue.
By Pythias on 2/12/2006 10:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
The business owner should have to right to provide or withhold services to/from whomever they choose. I personally, would choose to do so, but it should be my decision as a business owner.
The business should realize that this is another marketing venue and should never turn down a source of revenue.




By SteelyKen on 2/12/2006 10:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
*shudder* My, it is awfully cold in here... *shudder*


This is a SOCIETY
By proamerica on 2/12/2006 11:06:17 PM , Rating: 3
A few of the people posting on this site are fools... They seem to be about as handicapped mentally as a blind person is visually.

As a society we have a duty to all our members. There are geniuses who are confined to wheel chairs. If everyone just ignored their needs and left them to fend for themselves without helping them as a society should, then they would not be able to contribute their intelligence in a way that could benefit everyone.

While this does not automatically equate to accessing Target.com, this is just the beginning of the inevitable. Society should develop ways to include all of its members in the changing economy, and that includes the internet. There are handicapped parking spots in front every business in America, this is a reality, deal with it.

Soon there will be accessibility for blind people on all major websites, deal with it. This is what society is all about, we share our strength so that all our members can be active participants in the world we share with them.

Stop being childish, selfish, spoiled little idiots. If you go blind at some point in your life you will be thanking god that some blind students sued to force companies to provide accessibility for blind people.

Our society has lawsuits because that is how our society WORKS, get a clue you dips. If your employer screws you over you go to court, its a fact. The judge dispenses justice and we go on with our lives. If it wasn't for the courts and the threat of a lawsuit most corporations would just f*ck everyone.







RE: This is a SOCIETY
By michal1980 on 2/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: This is a SOCIETY
By proamerica on 2/13/2006 10:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
Hey idiot, why don't you learn to spell and use capital letters. Are you a fucking 25 year old elementary student?? It always figures, the intolerant, ignorant assholes are inevitably the stupidest people in the room.


catalog vs online shopping
By kattanna on 2/13/2006 1:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
now tell me how this is any different...really...

you dont see them suing people over the catalogs which are 100% visual...

i have NEVER seen a catalog that included braile


though we have braile on drive through ATM's...that one has always baffled me...





RE: catalog vs online shopping
By Decaydence on 2/13/2006 3:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
Good point on the catalog comparison. Realistically, an online shopping site is just a fancy catalog.

As far as the drive through ATM goes, I would imagine they just use the same parts on the drive through ATM's as they do on the walk up ones. Though it is a funny situation that I never really thought of. heh


Possible Solution
By reiters on 2/13/2006 2:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think what I would do is include a single pixel transparent gif in the top left cornetr with an alt="For assist for the visually impair call 800-555-1234". With that, the page reading system would announce that first and have operators assist the visually impaired with their orders over the phone.




RE: Possible Solution
By Knish on 2/14/2006 11:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
That is a ridiculously simple and good idea.


By Snuffalufagus on 2/13/2006 6:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
and draw the dots on screen :)





By Supersonic3474 on 2/19/2006 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
I dont get it. If your blind they how do you use the internet to begin with, how do you efficiently type on a keyboard. With no pun intended I think blind people are just mad because they cant see and are jelouse of people who can see so therefor are taking it out on us.


Who's Complaining
By reiters on 2/13/2006 1:12:50 AM , Rating: 3
Usually when I see complaining about the diabled's rights, it by a friend of the disabled or an activist. The ones disabled have usually come to grips with their dissability and moved on. We can't go on feeding the pockets of the greedy lawyers (not all are greedy) every time they say "I think we can make a case of this".

I have 20/15 vision so I can't understand what the blind are feeling, but my hearing has been failing more and more. I will, more than likely, be deaf in 10 years. That's the way the cookie crumbles. It is something I know I will have to deal with. I will find ways to go on with daily life even if it's limited in some way. I will not make it someones elses problem. It is wonderful when people come together to help others, but the flip site is that the help (in the case of web desing) should not be dictated by the few.

I am a web developer by trade. I have been for years. People who build their first site using those friendly GUIs to hold there hands through a 5 page website have no clue what goes into a corporate website. To convert Target's website would probably take developers, DBAs, unix admins more than 2 months of dedicated work to make the change. That would add up to tens of thousands of dollars. What would be the return on their investment. You have to remember that it is a very tight economy and all IT staffs are streatched to the limits. I work on a salary and put in 60-70 hours a week at no overtime because there is no room in the budget to hire more help. To state that it wouldn't be that much work is simply naive.

If a business has to cater to everyone for everything, they loose all margins of profitability at which point they will close their doors. That would serve nobody but the compitition.




Weak
By dmce on 2/12/2006 4:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Providing the action is to force Target.com to change the site and not actually make financial gain i would probably agree.




Ha
By Perium on 2/12/2006 4:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
Now thats funny




Medium
By BigT383 on 2/12/2006 5:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
This is rediculous. The web is, by and large, a visual medium. If I were blind, I would certainly be dissapointed that I couldn't use it, but I think I would realize that it was designed for people that could see. Can deaf people sue radio broadcasters and manufacturers? After all, it's an auditory medium and they're being left out. I'm sure that for each of the five senses, there is both a communication medium for it, and someone in the world who lacks it.




Blind != totally blind
By Filibuster on 2/12/2006 6:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
One thing people should consider when they see this is that you can be legally blind but still able to see. These people rely on different technologies to use a PC, and thus are still be able to use a website.

I only mention this because of someone I know who's parents are "blind" but they can both see somewhat.




I wouldn't sue them...
By Connoisseur on 2/12/2006 6:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
Look at it this way. At least they save money by not shopping online... and they stick it to the MAN. :)




Time for another Lawyer joke
By MemberSince97 on 2/12/2006 8:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Lawyers are ruining this country, not the disabled.




By somebodyspecial on 2/12/2006 8:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Those bastards... I'll bet they don't have brail on their billboards either! How could such a big company fail to aknowledge such a huge percent of their target audience. They better have a visually-impaired alternative to that cute lil doggie too. If target doesn't support the blind internet shopping community, who will?




Only in California...
By scabby on 2/12/2006 9:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
The lawyer for this suit is probably the same one that got drive-through ATMs to have braille on them.

(It's a joke... chuckle, k?)




wtf
By alphaaa on 2/12/2006 9:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
how the hell do blind people use a mouse anyways? they wouldnt see where the pointer is..

or are they using a software that would give them options in a list and they pick the corresponding number? or maybe voice recognition?

either way they cant really preview what they're getting online, so they shouldnt go shopping online in the first place.




Suing the wrong party?
By ROB G on 2/13/2006 12:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't The California Association of Blind Students sue the makers of the software designed to read the text on websites for not altering their code to interpret the Target website? After all, it seems many websites use this type of image map-tagging or images without alternative text approach. I'm sure he paid for the software that is seemingly useless. Shouldn't they shoulder the burden for not upgrading thier software to be up to date with newer web technologies? Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong...




so stupid..
By RaistlinZ on 2/13/2006 1:10:42 AM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of the lady that sued McDonalds when she spilled coffee on her lap.

Please, people. The next thing you know, the blind will be suing the International Olympic Committee for not allowing them to compete in the archery competition. /rolleyes




Depends how you see the future.
By Gil554 on 2/13/2006 1:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
There seems to be a separation in train of thought between how we see current laws applied and future implications. I foresee a day with far fewer brick and mortar businesses. With that in mind, ADA needs new interpretation and adaptation to deal with a changing structure of business interaction.

It's not that either group in this forum is inherently wrong, they are just viewing this issue from different eras. I have trouble seeing the US continuing to evolve its e-commerce without a few virtual elevators.

Alright back to people being called d-bags, ignoramuses, and calling the kettle black.




Just an side note:
By phil126 on 2/13/2006 8:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
There have been several references to the women who spilt the McDonalds coffee on here lap and then sued McDonalds. Just for the facts she did not sue McDonalds. She made a complaint and OSHA actually sued that particaular store for it was there third offense. The money from the suit wen to all three people who burnt by the coffee. It is amazing how media hype and spin can be used.




Legalized Extortion
By jskirwin on 2/13/2006 12:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
I've worked on ADA compliance at an unnamed private institution. It's a joke, and the only people that are laughing are ADA lawyers.

This is nothing more than legalized extortion. The ADA targets a well-known firm with $$$, sees that their website has not been officially branded as ADA compliant, then sues them.

You know what ADA compliance is? See the logo at the top of the screen? It needs an alt-tag that says "Graphic of Daily Tech logo". There's your compliance.

So the ADA sues the firm; the firm, worried about appearing hard-hearted to the blind, then settles by promising to be ADA compliant in x-years - and "donates" $$$ to charity. It then burns hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading external-facing websites to be ADA compliant.

Screen readers are better than they used to be. Truth be told a website doesn't need to be ADA compliant in order to be accessible by blind people. It's just not accessible to ADA compliance.

But hey, it paid my bills as a contractor for a good while. So it must be good, right?




By prceklp on 2/21/2006 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
I have worked with several colleagues who are blind. They have the assistive technologies available including screen reading software and Braille displays. The assistive technologies allow them to use the Internet, program, and use their computer effectively (I recommend the older movie "Sneakers" with Robert Redford to see a cool representation of this) The computer talks them and it is so cool because they have the speech going so fast, I know my brain couldn't keep up.

Have to admit it takes a little more work to add text to graphics in the form of alt text to a web site. Many times it takes only a few minutes to add this Alternative text and once this text is added, the person who is blind has access to the web site to buy, learn, find, etc...

Your right that that the ADA does not directly cover the Internet. But the main reason, I believe, is that the Internet was in its infancy in 1990 when the ADA was developed. Adding the extra accessible alternative text is equivalent to adding a wheelchair accessible ramp and accessible parking to a business. It makes good business sense because with the baby boomers retiring and possibly having a visual impairment (which many of us have as we get older), they will be buying from the Internet and needing access.

I hope people put alternative text just to make a complete well coded Web site. Many people just want text information and not have to download a whole bunch of pretty graphics. You notice that RSS readers are focused on providing text only information.

Just my two cents.
Kevin Price





hi
By tacorly on 2/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: hi
By Deadalus on 2/12/2006 4:07:55 PM , Rating: 3
I hope you are not a web designer. It is attitudes like yours that cause problems such as these. Why should people with disabilities be any less able to access websites, especially when it is relatively easy to accommodate them?

An experienced web designer should be aware the guidelines in-place for designing accessible websites, such as Section 508 in the US, the Disability Discrimination Act in the UK and the general Web Content Accessibility Guidelines provided by the W3C.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki