backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by sxr7171.. on Nov 8 at 6:07 PM
The Target.com web site is once again under fire

It was reported early last year that a student who is a member of the California Association of Blind Students sued Target.com because the company did not use software that interprets text on the screen for blind users. This time around, the National Federation for the Blind, an organization designed to represent blind people in the US, is suing Target. A federal judge recently ruled that web sites must cater to disabled users.

Target has claimed that its web site isn't subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act – an act signed in 1990 which requires businesses and retailers to make proper accommodations to people with disabilities. Target believes the law doesn't cover Internet web sites.

The lawsuit has stirred a debate as to whether or not disability rights should be applicable to blind users on the Internet. Many online stores continue to try to have something in place so that blind users are able to use the site.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Complex.
By NuroMancer on 11/7/2006 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
I mean, its one thing to make a site readable.

Once you have to have interaction like a shopping cart, doesn't that make it alot more difficult?




RE: Complex.
By MADAOO7 on 11/7/2006 4:48:38 PM , Rating: 4
I think this lawsuit is ridiculous. It seems along the lines of that McDonald's lawsuit blaming the company for making them fat. People have a choice. If Target.com doesn't offer the service, then they should just go to Walmart.com or somebody else who does.


RE: Complex.
By Le Québécois on 11/7/2006 5:09:28 PM , Rating: 1
I think there's way to much lawsuits on everysingle things down there in the US but on this one I may have to agree.

It's nothing like the McDonald's v.s. Fat people lawsuit here. We are talking about blind people and if the law really apply here they should comply(target.com).

And from my point of view even if the law doesn't apply here they should still do it to show some respect for disable people.



RE: Complex.
By encryptkeeper on 11/7/2006 5:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you've worked at Target you wouldn't know that they are scared to DEATH of negative PR. I worked there for 3 years and trust me, they want to have a squeaky clean image. I think this lawsuit needs to be directed at the company that makes the interpretation software for the blind rather than Target. But if you think they'll stand their ground and roll over the disabled, you'd better think again. Target will settle this case, no doubt.


RE: Complex.
By Le Québécois on 11/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Complex.
By sxr7171 on 11/8/2006 5:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why shouldn't they have the same choice we have?


RE: Complex.
By Lazarus Dark on 11/7/2006 5:22:15 PM , Rating: 3
It simply cant be expected that sites all be readable like they want. how is ajax, flash, etc. supposed to be accessable to blind? web sites become more complex to improve the user experience for most and it can't be expected that all sites dumb it down for the few blind users. If a company wants to make a seperate site then great, but it will take money to say make a ".braille" site or whatever and there is not much profit to be made there. Its not as simple as installing a ramp or putting braille on the sign, it would be more like making a whole different store for disabled which is not fair to ask a buisiness.

besides, as ai improves in ten years this may be a moot point as hopefully advanced ai will be able to reinterpret data in a form more accessible to blind or others.


RE: Complex.
By drxploder on 11/8/2006 9:06:33 AM , Rating: 4
hehe
.braille
the future of ecommerce.


RE: Complex.
By sxr7171 on 11/8/2006 5:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about websites, but about the online version of a store that happens to be a large major chain. Nobody is going to expect that your amateur website be accessible to blind users.


I wonder if...
By jskirwin on 11/7/2006 3:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
The lawsuit will be translated into Braille.




RE: I wonder if...
By das mod on 11/7/2006 3:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
what ??? daily tech isnt braille friendly either ???

i smell lawsuit here


RE: I wonder if...
By marvdmartian on 11/7/2006 4:30:34 PM , Rating: 5
I have to wonder, just how obnoxious are pop-up ads to blind people?? I mean, if you have a software that reads and speaks aloud everything that shows up on your monitor, can you imagine how awful it would be to accidently go to one of those porn sites with a million pop-up ads??

VIAGRA!! SO YOU CAN HAVE INCREDIBLE SEX!!!!
SMALL PENIS?? GET OUT SWEDISH PENIS PUMP AND BE MORE MANLY!!
WANT TO MEET GIRLS??? WOMEN IN YOUR AREA ARE LOOKING FOR GREAT SEX!!!!

Geez, that would get old, FAST!!


RE: I wonder if...
By encryptkeeper on 11/7/2006 5:20:57 PM , Rating: 5
LOL
Wouldn't it be bad if you were just browsing the net and suddenly your computer yells something like...
WOMAN FUCKING A HORSE...


Well...
By Aikouka on 11/7/2006 3:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say with what I know, I'd have to agree with Target on this one. The Target website has no real correlation with the store itself as in you can't buy an item and pick it up in store like at Circuit City. The correlation is with the Target company itself as the store and the website are both owned by the company.

What kind of implementation would be required for Target to even make the site accessible to the blind? A purely oral-driven website?

If anyone knows what software implementations they're looking for, could you post them, please?




RE: Well...
By TomZ on 11/7/2006 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a link with some information about Assistive Technology for browsers:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/11/07/ie7-an...

This article focuses on compatibility with IE7, but it will give you an idea of what's available on the market. And I guess the issue is that the Target site is not compatible with this type of software.


RE: Well...
By jskirwin on 11/7/2006 4:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
This link explains AFB's goal of ADA Web Compliance.

http://www.afb.org/section.asp?SectionID=3&TopicID...

What this involves is forcing a website to render in such a way that a screen reader (aka Jaws) can read it. This rendering must approximate the user experience of a sighted person.

From a design perspective this means:
1. Alt tags must be used for all graphics and the intent of the graphic must be made easily understood.

2. Avoid DHTML and other mouse-specific functionality.

It's a real pain - and has become a mini-industry for both the AFB and web designers/coders who redo these sites (FWIW I was employed on one such project).


RE: Well...
By encryptkeeper on 11/7/2006 5:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason Target is being sued here is that they are a huge corporation with lots of money. Target's website sucks, but shouldn't it be up to the company that writes the interpretation software for the blind's responsibility to make THEIR software compatible with websites rather than the other way around?


RE: Well...
By sxr7171 on 11/8/2006 6:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
It put food on your table, so why complain?


This is probably just getting started.
By MonkeyPaw on 11/7/2006 4:50:56 PM , Rating: 5
Target is probably a victim of circumstance here. There are undoubtedly a vast number of websites that are "non-compliant," but Target's problem is they have a high-profile one. Undoubtedly, if this goes through the courts, Target will probably just have to switch over to a compliant site. So why the lawsuit? My guess is to set precedent so that it becomes a requirement for any corporation (something with enough money to sue). Once the foot is in the door, it will get really ugly. Too many lawyers to not take a shot at something like this, unfortunately.

A friend of mine is a Landscape Architect, and he dreads ADA compliance on things like recreational trails, especially in hilly areas. Because of % slope limitations, it becomes both impractical and uneconomical to build trails in some areas. The end result is a project that either can't be constructed (extra land is often necessary), or becomes less accessable to everyone else (imagine jogging/biking up 1000 feet of switchbacks). We're becoming a society where if there isn't equal opportunity, something just might cease to exist. I'm not against equal opportunity by any means, but as sure as I cannot legally walk into the lady's changing room at Target, not every aspect of life is going to be accessible to everyone.




By gramboh on 11/7/2006 5:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Fully agree with your points on this one.


By sxr7171 on 11/8/2006 6:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, that is pure BS. Altering a recreational trail to suit disabled people is like rebuilding a roller coaster for 92 year old cardiac patients with chronic hypertension and end stage renal disease. Things happen in life, sadly, that rule out certain activities.


Not many!
By Clauzii on 11/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: Not many!
By feraltoad on 11/7/2006 4:18:51 PM , Rating: 5
Will lawyers,I mean lawyers on the BEHALF of the deaf, be suing iTunes next? I don't see why the onus is on Target to enable all users to access their website. Should a dial-up user complain that a website doesn't picture products in ASCII? Disabled people who want to surf the net effectively need software/technology, and I don't see how letting them stick their hands into Target's pockets is going to help anyone except their lawyers.


RE: Not many!
By encryptkeeper on 11/7/2006 5:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Deaf people suing Itunes...I love your sense of irony.

Seriously. I'm gonna use the ITunes+Deaf thing.


RE: Not many!
By Clauzii on 11/7/2006 5:22:54 PM , Rating: 1
I give up.......


Catalogs?
By Lord Evermore on 11/7/2006 11:55:36 PM , Rating: 3
So why haven't catalogs and all magazines been required to be available in Braille all these years? They're just as much something that people NEED to have access to as a company's website. They're sending something out to customers which is completely unusable by the blind.

The website isn't usable with a screen reader? You don't like that? Don't shop there. Send an email to the webmaster and the corporate customer service department to let them know you aren't shopping there because of it, and get all your blind friends to do it, and all your sighted friends who want to support you. Make up a petition for it and write letters to the editor in newspapers.

Or just go shop IN the store. Just because the website isn't available to you doesn't mean they've made their products and services unavailable to you, which is what the ADA is meant to address.

It seems like this was a lawyer looking for something to do, and he went out and asked some blind people if they'd like to be able to use Target's website.




RE: Catalogs?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/8/2006 9:44:22 AM , Rating: 1
> "It seems like this was a lawyer looking for something to do..."

Actually, he's looking for a fat payoff from Target. Otherwise, I agree with your points. If you want to buy something from Target-- go to the store. Reasonable accommodations for the blind are made there.


RE: Catalogs?
By CoreGamer on 11/8/2006 9:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed

quote:
So why haven't catalogs and all magazines been required to be available in Braille all these years?


Big point there...


JAWS users
By xbbdc on 11/7/2006 6:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
i worked at target as well and they would do anything to get rid of any negative PR and so they will definitely make the site compliant. i work at tech support in a virtual call center and we have some blind people that work at home... they are pretty savvy on internet sites and they use a program called JAWS ... of course there are a lot of websites that can get sued because its not blind-friendly, however this could have stemmed from the previous case before where Target did not make the site compliant and is now suffering national exposure regarding it.




RE: JAWS users
By techbeat2k on 11/7/2006 8:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
JAWS is over $900... I say they should be the ones making their software work with the non-compliant websites...


Having the court create law
By viperpa on 11/7/2006 4:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
This is a case that will stand out cause if Target loses then other sites will get sued. Since the internet don't fall under the Disibilities Act, they are having the court to inact law when that is up to the legislature. They should be calling there represenatives rather than suing.




So sue me
By Rob94hawk on 11/7/2006 11:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Want to shut up the complainers, shut down the website.

That'll end the lawsuit real quick.




Some info
By zerocool84 on 11/8/2006 2:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
I have some personal knowledge of this suite. What is going on is that since they sell some products that are EXCLUSIVELY available on their website, they are alienating blind people and as we all know, in this day and age, you alienate anybody for anything, you're going to get into trouble.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki