Another Reason For Accessible Web Design

[bhambruiser]

Link to Article

Blind student sues Target over firm's Web site

It lacks software that allows access to visually impaired

A blind UC Berkeley student is suing Target Corp., saying the retailer is violating the civil rights of those who cannot see because its Web site is inaccessible to them.

Although it might seem odd that the blind would use a Web site like www.target.com, advocates for the blind said Wednesday that computer software and coding embedded in Web sites makes surfing the Internet as easy for those who cannot see as it is for those who can.

But Target's Web site, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, does not support such software, making the site useless to the blind -- a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and various state laws.

"Target thus excludes the blind from full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of daily life," said the suit, which seeks class action certification.

Advocates for the blind said the lawsuit is a shot across the bow for retailers, newspapers and other businesses that have Web sites the blind cannot use. They chose Target because of its popularity and because of a large number of complaints by blind patrons.

"What I hope is that Target and other online merchants will realize how important it is to reach 1.3 million people in this nation and the growing Baby Boomer population who will also be losing vision," said Bruce Sexton Jr., 24, the blind third-year Cal student who filed the suit.

In a statement Wednesday, Target said it hadn't been served with the suit and couldn't comment. "However, we strive to make our goods and services available to all of our guests, including those with disabilities," the company said.

Sexton, president of the California Association of Blind Students, said making Target's Web site accessible to the blind would also make it more navigable by those without vision problems.

Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore, an advocacy group that's also a plaintiff in the suit, said Wednesday that the complaint is based on the theory that the online portals of "brick-and-mortar stores" must be equally accessible. Too often, he said, such is not the case.

"Target is one of the biggest companies in the country," Maurer said. "One of the things we're trying to do is change the way this is done."

Blind people access Web sites using keyboards and screen-reading software that vocalizes the information others see on a computer screen. But Target's site lacks "alt-text," an invisible code embedded beneath images on the Web site that screen-reading software uses to provide descriptions to the blind, the suit said.

The Web site also has inaccessible image maps, the suit said. Image maps, when clicked on by sighted users, allow the patron to jump to other parts of the Web site. Without image maps, visitors to www.target.com must use a mouse to complete transactions -- preventing blind patrons from surfing the site or making online purchases, the suit said.

Some companies, like Wells Fargo & Co., have Web sites accessible to the blind, said Mazen Basrawi, an attorney with Disability Rights Advocates of Berkeley, which represents the plaintiffs.

In 2003, Wells Fargo was the first financial institution to have its Web site certified by Maurer's group, bank spokesman Chris Hammond said.

Basrawi said the plaintiffs began negotiating with Target after writing to the retailer in May 2005. But talks broke down last month, and the company, which the attorney described as "one of the biggest offenders," declined to modify its Web site.

"Blind people have complained about (Target's Web site) in particular," Basrawi said. "That one's gotten a lot of complaints, especially because it's completely unusable. A blind person cannot make a purchase independently on target.com."

Target has 1,400 stores in 47 states, including 205 in California, and reported $46 billion in revenue in 2004.

[Broken Record]

I'm all for making websites easy to use for everyone, but suing is ridiculous. I could understand maybe if it was an important site like a governmental information/services site, but Target???

If you don't like it, don't shop there. Boycott them. Shop at walmart.com. Call the local or national news and get them to do a story. They'll take notice. This country is litigation crazy.

[bhambruiser]

all of that is true, but if the designers would have protected themselves beforehand they wouldn't have to worry about anything.

Section 508 man

[Broken Record]

I'm with ya, but Target isn't subject to Section 508 are they?

[bhambruiser]

technically no...

but as I have been told by many "pro-accessibility" designers - it is a good idea to comply as much as possible no matter who you are.

situations like this give us the reason why

[Broken Record]

I understand your point, and realistically I probably have to agree with you.

Fundamentally, though, it stinks that you should have to follow a law that doesn't even apply to you out of fear you could get sued for not breaking the law.

[bhambruiser]

yep...unfortunately that is life I guess

then again- why punish someone for being blind or having some other disability?

by punish i guess i mean not allow them access to your content.

[Broken Record]

Well taking multi million dollar corporation Target's side versus the poor blind kid probably isn't a popular position, but... while I disagree with Target's decision not to go ahead and implement the code, I support their right to decide whether or not they want to spend resources to do it without the government or the courts deciding for them... and yes, I'm a Libertarian

[rmered]

Well I should be able to sue them because they're not offering to send products sold to overseas customers. They will only send to mainland USA.

Surely this infringes the same rights I have.

This is just nuts. Like BR says, go some place else.

Better yet, set up your own E-tail outlet for the blind and clean up.

Or perhaps it's just easier to do nothing and get a settlement out of court...

Target have no obligation to follow 508, yet some clown thinks he can make a buck and a name for himself from legal action.

Well, I hope they stand their ground and win the case.

[Broken Record]

Well I should be able to sue them because they're not offering to send products sold to overseas customers. They will only send to mainland USA.

Surely this infringes the same rights I have.

This is just nuts. Like BR says, go some place else.

Better yet, set up your own E-tail outlet for the blind and clean up.

Or perhaps it's just easier to do nothing and get a settlement out of court...

Target have no obligation to follow 508, yet some clown thinks he can make a buck and a name for himself from legal action.

Well, I hope they stand their ground and win the case.

Preach on brother.

[winters in buffalo]

Can someone enlighten me as to what makes a website accessible? Also, who is required to have accessible websites?

[STL FANATIC]

I'm all for equal rights, but sometimes people need help. Is it really a surprise that a blind person might need help buying something online? I can't imagine a blind person living a completely independent life...and that's not bad because I don't think anyone can really live a completely independent life.

I just don't get it. People are different and they need help with different things. I don't understand this at all.

[rmered]

I'm all for equal rights, but sometimes people need help. Is it really a surprise that a blind person might need help buying something online? I can't imagine a blind person living a completely independent life...and that's not bad because I don't think anyone can really live a completely independent life.

I just don't get it. People are different and they need help with different things. I don't understand this at all.

I'm for equal rights too.

But the question is: what is the obligation of any given organisation to offer the various types of help people require?

Blind people can't see. Deaf people can't hear. Black people can't ski. (ask Bryant Gumble)

Who is it up to to provide the help that these people require?

My opinion is it's not Target, Wal-Mart or the corner store.

[pollux]

Can someone enlighten me as to what makes a website accessible? Also, who is required to have accessible websites?

I've had the opportunity to work for a government agency in Canada, and they had to provide accessible websites. It means that whoever you are, blind, deaf, impaired, you can consult the website.

There are many things that need to be considered when developing an accessible website. The first thing that I remember was testing it in Lynx. Lynx is a console-based browser on Unix. So whenever you want to browse the website, it has to be possible using Lynx. The second thing was to test it with a browser for the blind, but I can't remember the name.

The biggest thing you have to remember is that images cannot be seen in both cases, which gives the "alt" function on an image tag its importance, especially if your menu is done using images. If you don't use it, then they won't be able to navigate through the website.

I don't know all details for having an accessible website, but I can say that it is very hard to comply to all rules.

As for who is required to have accessible website, I'd say mostly government sites. But I hope in this case that Target wins, because they decide to "lose" clients not being accessible.

To give you an idea for a browser for the blind, you could use the Narrator in Windows, then roll over webpages with your mouse. It should give you an approximate idea...