Main > Everything Else

Blind people sue Target because they can't access Target's website.

<< < (29/33) > >>

Ed_McCarron:
Hey, just thought of something.

Lets say I only speak/read Korean, but want to use Targets website.

Wheres that fall?

ChadTower:

Being Korean is not a disability.

If they design the site with that in mind it's better than redesigning it later, yes, but it still adds expensive requirements to the design process.

patrickl:
I don't think it adds to the design process. The builders do keep these things in mind. They have to cope with at least 5 or 6 (versions) of webbrowsers so keeping track of a few simple extra rules for the vision impaired shouldn't be a problem.

Besides, things like not using frames and making your site CSS based actually has lots of other advantages too. It makes the site more friendly for any user and it makes it scalable to PDA's. Also, think about google. This is basically a "blind" user too. So even if you use fancy javascript menus you will generally also make sure the website can be navigated by more normal means.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on October 07, 2007, 12:47:37 pm ---
 let me disspell that myth right freakin' now.  It takes a lot longer than that to get stuff through the various test environments, get it tested in dev, then by the business, then through various compliance processes and finally into production.  Major production websites that drive a retailer like Target are nothing like a single person small business site.

--- End quote ---

Right . . . I'm not a web programmer, but I'm talking about building a site that is compliant from the ground up.  The cost of building in ADA compliance to begin with is not that significant, if it's just a matter of adding alt tags, especially with tools like the one posted above that will identify any problems automatically.  I'm talking out ---my bottom--- to some degree, since I've never developed websites, but I suspect that I'm not too far off the mark.  My initial quote was an understatement, to be sure, but it was meant figuratively.

ChadTower:

You're assuming that the ADA requirement predates the websites.  We all know internet commerce moves about 100x faster than gov't regulations.  I'd be shocked if more than a small handful of large scale ecommerce sites weren't up and running when those requirements were put into place.  Especially when multiple major regulatory changes come down all at once (Sarbanes Oxley would have hit them too).  A retailer like Target, whose main service is B+M locations, wouldn't be particularly efficient or optimally staffed for making rapid major changes to their web storefront.  They'd either have to do it slowly or hire contract firms... and contractors, as I've experienced dozens of times now, are very hit or miss in this field.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version