Let's Have a Moment of Silence for the Death of Common Sense...

[Kara]

WTF?!

Isn't there some kind of condition in regards to what is considred discriminitory to the disabled if it is impossible to make certain things accessible? What's next? Will record companies be sued because they discriminate against the deaf? What about quadrapeligics who can't drive a car? Can I sue the companies who send me emails for penis enlargement?

What the hell do they want? You can't put braille on a website for crying out loud.

Every day, my hatred of this country grows and I look to the great northern land of Canada with longing.

[Pedersen]

I'm going to jump in on the side of the blind here for one big reason: It is very possible to make a website accessible to the blind. In fact, it's very easy: Make it accessible to users using lynx, links, elinks. All of them are text only browsers.'

If a user can use your site using one of them, then a blind person can use your site through various screen reading programs and/or touch terminals which translate screens into braille (yes, they do exist).

If Target is failing to meet this standard, then the onus falls on Target to get into compliance, and I have no pity for them.

My statements above are made all the more amazing since I detest frivolous lawsuits and bad laws. But I'm not certain the ADA is a bad law, nor am I certain this is a frivolous suit.

[Banrion]

They don't go into details in the article, but it's most likely not because they can't see the website, it is because the website is designed in such a way as to prevent things like text only based browsers from being able to effectively read the website to the blind.

[RammsteinGirl]

I probably shouldn't be talking about this seeing as I work there, but in the recent past K-fart was hit with a huge class action lawsuit for failing to comply with ADA standards.

Now, Kmart has to have their aisles spaced a certain width, shelves have to be so many inches apart, and a wheelchair-accessible checkout lane has to be open at all times (the checkout aisles at my Kmart are SO NARROW!). Also, the candy at the unopened checkouts can't be blocked because that also violates ADA standards, I guess if the wheelchair customers can't get to the candy.

[chops]

If a user can use your site using one of them, then a blind person can use your site through various screen reading programs and/or touch terminals which translate screens into braille (yes, they do exist).

Anyone who's seen Sneakers can attest to this fact.

[Kara]

Hmm....

My mistake.

[napoleana]

I'm surprised by this. I know there are technologies that enable the blind to use computers, but I assumed that it was the responsibilities of those technologies to make sites readable, not the other way around. Perhaps too much important text was in pictures or flash where it couldn't be read by a program? I'd be interested in knowing where they failed. Also, I wonder if Target was actually complained to before hand? The article didn't mention any prior formal complaints, but surely that happened? I really wish the article were longer and gave more detail.

And, what I'm really curious about is why the blind need internet shopping for the type of things that Target.com sells anyway. I can't think any description of clothes, accessories, electronics, etc. would be as beneficial to a blind person as walking into a store and talking with a helpful sales person and touching the products themselves. I don't mean that in a bitchy way, but rather a "can someone please take pity on my lack of imagination" way.

Anyway, I hope I hear more detail about this. I don't usually like news about suits and other sorts of drama, but this actually really interests me...

[Der Cute]

Napoleana:
Target sells STUFF. Music, shampoo, diapers, audiobooks, furniture.....

Even if the purchaser is blind, they still need to wash themselves!


Part of me misses the old websites - textier instead of so flashy. I really agree with the lawsuit. I DON'T know how much it will cost to change the coding on the website, though. Or effort level...

Heh. Just thought of when ATMs came out, and they have braille on the buttons...some are so used the nubs are rubbed off!

Cutenoob

[Pedersen]

I'm surprised by this. I know there are technologies that enable the blind to use computers, but I assumed that it was the responsibilities of those technologies to make sites readable, not the other way around. Perhaps too much important text was in pictures or flash where it couldn't be read by a program?

Yes, these technologies have the job of making it so the blind can navigate the internet. But Target (and others) have a legal responsibility to make it so these technologies can work. Ways in which companies have failed at this in the past include (but are not limited to):

• Putting their entire navigation into a flash applet. Since the screen readers can't read flash in that way, blind users would be unable to access the site.
• Failing to use "alt" tags for their images. Especially critical on sites that use images to manage navigation. alt tags provide textual descriptions of images, which gives screen readers something they can read, instead of "my_left_nav_corner.jpg".

Especially with modern browser technologies, there is no reason not to provide such support. As I said earlier: Make your site so that somebody could navigate using lynx, links, or elinks, and you will not run afoul of ADA.

And, what I'm really curious about is why the blind need internet shopping for the type of things that Target.com sells anyway.

Ah, I can think of a few items (and each of those words is a different link) that might be of interest to a blind user browsing the Target site. And that was just from browsing their main category listing. I'm sure I could find more if I really went on a hunt.

Also, don't discount the idea of already having determined what is being sought, and then using Target.com as an online location to shop for the best price. Sometimes, they will win the price war.