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

[HaRuMaN]

Story Here

This gets a big WTF?     How is Target supposed to do that?  And why are they targeting (lol) Target?  Are there websites out there that blind people can access somehow?

[shardian]

Blind people must really hate Target?

[SavannahLion]

This was part of one of my courses at school.

Websites aren't accessible to the blind per se, it's not like you literally have to have a braille version of the website. What it is is that websites need to be blind software friendly.

I haven't had the need to design a website that's blind friendly in a long time. The gist of it is is that certain web techniques are actually very blind unfriendly. For instance, a common tactic to organizing information and layout is to use complex table layout rules. While tables visually look nice, blind screen readers had a hell of a time interpreting information within any but the most simple table layouts. It is (was?) a rule that web developers couldn't use rowspan and colspan because readers would tend to botch them. Another is the use of frames, image only text, Java, ActiveX, Flash, Gotchas, the list goes on and on. CSS wreaked havoc on blind readers for a long time.

My information is a bit out of date, so I might be wrong on a couple of points. I'm sure by now all but the most complex CSS is handled accurately by readers.

[tommy]

I guess this is like suing a shoe company because their shoes are not "no leg people" friendly.

[Ed_McCarron]

Sure, it sucks to be blind, but WTF?

Driving isn't blind person friendly... You don't see Ford getting sued.

[Green Giant]

Sure, it sucks to be blind, but WTF?

Driving isn't blind person friendly... You don't see Ford getting sued.

Shhh... If they can listen to this page some how they will get ideas and take GM out for good.

I never new it was a state law for a company to provide access for another companies software.  If the software translating for the blind is not state run and nonprofit, then noone should have to support it unless you are in communist china. 

Soon the thumbless will sue Apple for their DRM crap since they can't work a clickwheel.

[psik0tik]

If your blind how are you ever going to use the internet. Unless it speaks to you everything thats on the page.

[Ken Layton]

Another case of a frivolous lawsuit clogging the courts. 

[shardian]

I am thinking flooding the BBB with their complaints would have been a better course of action.

[patrickl]

Story Here

This gets a big WTF?     How is Target supposed to do that?  And why are they targeting (lol) Target?  Are there websites out there that blind people can access somehow?

We do actually built our websites with blind people in mind, but basically all we do is not to use frames (which suck anyway) and to put alt tags on pictures so they can read what it shows. Of course we also make sure that the site can be used without a mouse and that it works without flash and javascript. It's really mostly things you normally do for seeing people anyway.

Target does use frames, but they do seem to have alt tags on everything. I tried it in a text web browser and it seems to work reasonably well.

So yeah, it could be easier to use (especially with their hugely complicated front page), but it's certainly not like they make it impossible for the blind to use the site. I might be overlooking something, but suing over this does seem a bit over the top.

[Matthew Anderson]

Take a breath and think of the bigger issues.... They need to send a message to the websites they probably most want to see  ..urm.. hear

But who would give them any sympathy if they sued the pr0n companies directly 

Equal and fair access to ALL websites equally

 

Personally I think it IS a bit silly

[ahofle]

I always wondered why drive through ATMs have braille on the keys. 

[ChadTower]

Because they use the same ATMs as walkups.

[Dartful Dodger]

If the blind people sueing Target just said they were going to boycott Target, they wouldn't get any press.  Other blind people and friends and family of blind people wouldn't know about it. 

Win or lose they have made this an issue worth posting on Arcadecontrols.com.

There is a blind guy in my car club, because of him I programmed our website to be seeing impaired friendly.

Target has more money and staff than my car club, in two weeks they'll have a blind friendly site.  They may even give a huge donation to some blind cause.

I'll be the first to throw a stone at bogus lawsuits, this isn't one of them.

[ChadTower]

I'm going to sue Target in 6 weeks because their website doesn't have enough frames and Flash animations to suit me.

[knave]

Just an FYI...There are a full suites of software that essentially read out a website for the visually impared. (lol I'm p.c.)

Jaws is one and I think that Dragon is another.  I'm not sure if there is some conspiracy about naming them after critters with lots of teeth.

Where I work we have a special workstation with Jaws installed.  It allows some order as to how one can navigate the computer and the web without using the monitor.

I guess Targets site was not compatable.  It still should not be a lawsuit IMHO.

[hulkster]

  im going to sue McDonalds for not making their slides big enough in the play place for adults to play in.  its discriminating against adults and i will not stand for it.

[tommy]

There is no reason a blind person would ever have a need to be on a website to start with. Why would you expect to be able to use a piece of electronics that is made for people who can see?

If you want to get peoples attention for good reasons that's one thing, but this is just to lame to bother with.

At some point you will need the help of someone who can see so why not get that person to help you to start with on the site? I can't see a blind person finding something he wants on the website, then somehow making his way to the store unaided, then finding in that store what he wants on his own, then finding the register and finding what bill in his wallet is right to pay for this item and make his way home and use it.

If this site would somehow make this blind person able to do things without the help of another person then i can see it being worth something, otherwise you can go on suing every person in the world who has not made something specifically for people not able to see. That would be a huge list.

[KenToad]

Why wouldn't Target just make it accessible?  It seems like a company that large would want to do that anyway.   

[leapinlew]

I wonder if blind people are behind it or just lawyers. I suspect it's just a bunch of lawyers looking for a payday.

[Ed_McCarron]

Why wouldn't Target just make it accessible?  It seems like a company that large would want to do that anyway.   

True.  Unfortunately, this is not the point.

[KenToad]

Why wouldn't Target just make it accessible?  It seems like a company that large would want to do that anyway.   

True.  Unfortunately, this is not the point.

So, please inform me.

[AtomSmasher]

There is no reason a blind person would ever have a need to be on a website to start with. Why would you expect to be able to use a piece of electronics that is made for people who can see?

They have just as much of a need to go to that website as people who are not blind.  I remember back in college one of my friends roommates was almost blind, and he had his computer set up the same as a completely blind person would.  I remember thinking how wierd it was watching him work on his computer with the monitor turned off and how the computer was talking so fast that I couldn't even understand what it was saying (but he could understand it since thats how he liked it)

[leapinlew]

Why wouldn't Target just make it accessible?  It seems like a company that large would want to do that anyway.   

True.  Unfortunately, this is not the point.

So, please inform me.

The point is they are getting sued because it's not compatible. Law suits already happening. Making it compatible may be part of the settlement or ruling, but the damage is done.

[ChadTower]

Blind people saying hybrid cars are unfair.  They hate Al Gore and the Earth. 

Can't they see what is going on?

[Chris]

Wow, what an ugly development.  Imagine if this suit succeeds, and any one of us could be sued because our Web site about our cabinets isn't friendly to a screen reader?

[KenToad]

I think this is just about shopping, at least according to the linked article from the first post.

[Chris]

I think this is just about shopping, at least according to the linked article from the first post.

For now.

[Ed_McCarron]

Blind people saying hybrid cars are unfair.  They hate Al Gore and the Earth. 

Can't they see what is going on?

No.

[Ed_McCarron]

Blind people saying hybrid cars are unfair.  They hate Al Gore and the Earth. 

Can't they see what is going on?

NFB (National Federation for the Blind) President Marc Maurer said he received an e-mail from an environmentalist who suggested that the members of his group should be the first to drown when sea levels rise from global warming.

Makes sense - they wouldn't hear the water levels rising.

[Chris]

Blind people saying hybrid cars are unfair.  They hate Al Gore and the Earth. 

Can't they see what is going on?

NFB (National Federation for the Blind) President Marc Maurer said he received an e-mail from an environmentalist who suggested that the members of his group should be the first to drown when sea levels rise from global warming.

Makes sense - they wouldn't hear the water levels rising.

Why would a blind person have trouble hearing water?

[tommy]

Maybe Target does have a blind friendly site and the guy just didn't realize his pc was not turned on?

[ChadTower]

Why would a blind person have trouble hearing water?

Because they'd be dead, having sat there for 500 years, waiting for the water to rise that high.

[Dartful Dodger]

The point is they are getting sued because it's not compatible. Law suits already happening. Making it compatible may be part of the settlement or ruling, but the damage is done.

Those of you that think this lawsuit is a waste of time and feel for Target haven't gone out and bought something from Target.

On the flip side, people who are sympathetic to this cause are going to stop shopping at Target.

Even if this post encourages you to buy something from Target, you wont make Target your primary store.

The lost revenue from this lawsuit is going to be higher than any found revenue.

Target needs to make this right as soon as possible.

[ChadTower]

Target is already my primary store and this will have no effect on that.

[Chris]

I think I'm going to sue Rolex for nor being accessible to the middle class.

[ChadTower]

In that case I'm going to sue Laura Prepon for not being accessible to me.

[tommy]

I think I'm going to sue Rolex for nor being accessible to the middle class.

I can get you a nice "rolax" real cheap.

[shmokes]

I think this is just about shopping, at least according to the linked article from the first post.

For now.

Um . . . no, forever (or until Congress decides to change the law).  When people talk about these law suits like this as being "frivolous", they commonly have severe misconceptions about how the court system works.  If someone sued you for not making your personal website blind-person-friendly, the case would never go to trial.  First, the blind person's lawyer would tell them that they had no case.  But let's say the blind person insisted on suing you, and either represented himself or found an attorney who was willing to represent him in spite of advising him that he had no case (actually telling a blind client that there was any possibility of winning here would be grounds for malpractice, which would end the lawyer's career).  Even here, the case will never go to trial.  You'll simply file for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim.  This means that you concede all of the plaintiff's allegations.  You don't deny any of them.  But even assuming all of the plaintiff's allegations are true, they do not establish a cause of action.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. It also applies to the United States Congress.  The ADA REQUIRES businesses to accommodate blind people.  It specifically mentions retail stores; it specifically mentions blind people. 

The law imposes a duty on me to not do anything that would create an unreasonable risk for you.  If I negligently build a homemade flamethrower out of a Super Soaker squirt gun, and while I'm showing it off, accidentally light some bushes on fire and the fire spreads to your home, burning it down, I am liable.  You have a cause of action, because the law REQUIRES that I exercise reasonable care, and the breach of my duty to you gives you a cause of action.

Now, if the law IMPOSES a duty on all businesses to accommodate provide effective communication for blind people (and, yes, it has been specifically extended to online businesses, in case anybody thought that might be an open loophole), and a business breaches that duty, how is it a frivolous lawsuit for a blind person to sue any more than the hypothetical I gave you above? 

If you don't like it, blame the law, not the judiciary.  It's not like this stems from some "activist court" (as people like to call them), reading a protection for blind people into the constitution where one doesn't exist.  It's just a federal law.  Congress passed it.  It's not unconstitutional.  Therefore Target is required to abide by it.  If they break the law, injured parties have a case.


edit: thread's moving fast.  added quote for clarity

[ChadTower]

The question here, of course, is whether or not there is precedent for such commercial facilities extending to a website.  They are not refusing to accommodate blind people - the store are all fully accommodating.  The website may or may not be depending on whether or not accommodation is even defined for commercial websites.  So it doesn't make it easy for some blind assisting software packages - does that constitute nonaccommodation in the eyes of the law and is the website legally required to be so?

[leapinlew]

The question here, of course, is whether or not there is precedent for such commercial facilities extending to a website.  They are not refusing to accommodate blind people - the store are all fully accommodating.  The website may or may not be depending on whether or not accommodation is even defined for commercial websites.  So it doesn't make it easy for some blind assisting software packages - does that constitute nonaccommodation in the eyes of the law and is the website legally required to be so?

exactly.

If this suit is lost, I suppose they can then try to sue the software package that cannot read their website properly. Either way, someone is getting sued.

[Ed_McCarron]

Man, if thats the case, and I'm target, I'd put instructions on the site (where their software can find it to read) that state if you are blind, get a sighted person to help you.

There.  I've accommodated the blind.  I've offered a perfectly reasonable way for them to navigate my site.

I've got a buddy who is colorblind.  Hes got a helper app that converts colored text on webpages to italic, bold, underline, etc, etc so he can tell whats different colors.  It chokes on graphics.  He's not running around suing people.

[Dartful Dodger]

Target is already my primary store and this will have no effect on that.

Target is only concerned about how this is going to effect their profit.

My guess is the majority of people who are against this lawsuit, will still shop where they’ve always shopped.

It’s the ones that sympathize with this lawsuit that will force target to rebuild their webpage.

By being a loyal customer your helping to pay for the redesign.

Rolex doesn't need your (lack of money), so they won't change.

[shmokes]

There's quite a bit of caselaw already in place.

Here's a link to the trial court decision.  Coincidentally (see my previous post), it is only a hearing on Target's motion to dismiss for failure to state a case.  The court denied the motion, which means that it will go to trial and the blindies get to present evidence to a jury.  The opinion is REALLY well written and reasoned. 

It's worth noting, if you decide to read it, that in the opinion the judge says that when the ADA refers to a public place, they are talking about a physical location.  Keep in mind that this is a trial court judge.  He is REQUIRED to say this because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal has defined it that way in previous cases and he is bound by their rulings.  Other circuits, on the other hand, have said exactly the opposite, i.e., that it includes electronic spaces such as websites.  The court didn't deny because ADA prohibits discrimination with regards to any services OF the store, not IN the store, and the arguments are that the website is a service of the store, and that lack of access to the website hinders full/equal enjoyment of the stuff in the store (as in Target intends for you to be able to look up information and prices online, and then come into the store to make your purchase if you want).  But, once this case goes beyond the trial court, the previous 9th Circuit definition of the ADA's "public spaces" phrase is no longer binding, and if it then goes to the Supreme Court, it's not even particularly persuasive.

One last thing for whoever said that Target's website seemed pretty accessible . . . This suit began in January, 2006.  My guess is that at some point in the last year and a half Target decided to go ahead and make their site ADA compliant.

[leapinlew]

Target is already my primary store and this will have no effect on that.

Target is only concerned about how this is going to effect their profit.

My guess is the majority of people who are against this lawsuit, will still shop where they’ve always shopped.

It’s the ones that sympathize with this lawsuit that will force target to rebuild their webpage.

By being a loyal customer your helping to pay for the redesign.

Rolex doesn't need your (lack of money), so they won't change.

Also, the sun will rise tomorrow.

I mean, come on. What your saying is obvious. Whats target going to do? Take a stance and not provide web pages for the blind?

[leapinlew]

I suppose next the National Association of Archers will sue Target because they shot their monitors out with arrows when Targets web page loaded.

[boykster]

Target should spin target.com off into its own company, not directly associated with the B&M target stores......kinda like how Circuit City and CircuitCity.com used to be / still are seperate companies with a working agreement on order fulfillment.

too late though for this lawsuit.....

[shmokes]

If this suit is lost, I suppose they can then try to sue the software package that cannot read their website properly. Either way, someone is getting sued.

Once again, that's not how it works, leapinlew.  Chad basically nailed it.  The question is, does ADA consider websites to be analogs of brick and mortar retailers, imposing analogical accessibility requirements.  Of course, considering the intent of the law, I can't imagine that anyone honestly considering the issue would suggest that when congress was passing a law attempting to give blind people equal access to retailers that they would seriously have required a business to spend tens of thousands of dollars to install ramps, and make signs with braille, etc., etc., but they would have exempted websites.  The laws were simply passed in 1990 and 1992.  There was no internet then as far as commerce was concerned.

But common sense aside, I really don't think Chad is saying what you think he's saying.  It seems to me that he just stated an objective issue before the court.  Since the case is now officially going to trial, the court will address the issue and give us a holding. 

I doubt he would get behind you on your assertion that the company making the software package could be sued.  Once again, unhappiness or disappointment alone are not legal claims.  You have to have a legal cause of action to bring a case to trial.  You have to be able to state a claim.  ADA says that Target MUST give full access to their facilities and services to blind people.  It doesn't say that every product on the shelves must be blind-person friendly.  It doesn't even talk about products.  A blind person can't sue Blizzard for not making World of Warcraft accessible to the visually impaired, because there is no law requiring them to do so.  There is a law requiring retailers to give blind people full access to their services and public facilities, so a blind person CAN sue a retailer who fails to do so.  I don't see what is so hard about that concept.

[shmokes]

I suppose next the National Association of Archers will sue Target because they shot their monitors out with arrows when Targets web page loaded.

Legal cause of action, leapinlew.  Legal cause of action.  Necessary.  Cannot sue without it.  Law must be broken.  Repeat after me: Cause.  Of.  Action.

[leapinlew]

I suppose next the National Association of Archers will sue Target because they shot their monitors out with arrows when Targets web page loaded.

Legal cause of action, leapinlew.  Legal cause of action.  Necessary.  Cannot sue without it.  Law must be broken.  Repeat after me: Cause.  Of.  Action.

You should sue god for not giving you a sense of humor

Repeat after me:
HOT COFFEE IN LAP

[shmokes]

Well . . . the problem remains.  God is not required by law to provide me with a sense of humor, so presumably my case would simply be dismissed for failure to state a case.

On the other hand, McDonalds is bound by product liability and duty of care law.   

[leapinlew]

Well . . . the problem remains.  God is not required by law to provide me with a sense of humor, so presumably my case would simply be dismissed for failure to state a case.

On the other hand, McDonalds is bound by product liability and duty of care law.   

And pinballjim should be able to post a patch to an opensource program

[ChadTower]

Does that count as a Hitler reference?

[shmokes]

Well . . . the problem remains.  God is not required by law to provide me with a sense of humor, so presumably my case would simply be dismissed for failure to state a case.

On the other hand, McDonalds is bound by product liability and duty of care law.   

And pinballjim should be able to post a patch to an opensource program

Okay 

[leapinlew]

Well . . . the problem remains.  God is not required by law to provide me with a sense of humor, so presumably my case would simply be dismissed for failure to state a case.

On the other hand, McDonalds is bound by product liability and duty of care law.   

And pinballjim should be able to post a patch to an opensource program

Okay 

Whee! Everybody wins!

[ChadTower]

Technically Jim can post that thing all he wants, just not here... because the owner said no.

[SavannahLion]

This conversation is really disappointing. It's enlightening to see some of the commentary here in regards to the handicapped. For instance:

Man, if thats the case, and I'm target, I'd put instructions on the site (where their software can find it to read) that state if you are blind, get a sighted person to help you.

There.  I've accommodated the blind.  I've offered a perfectly reasonable way for them to navigate my site.

That is downright insulting. What this essentially shows is a lack of understanding of what it's like to not only be blind, but to be one of the millions of "helpers" who assist the handicap every day of their lives.

Try this on a weekend, say Friday night, put on a blindfold and don't take them off until Monday. With this blindfold on, try and convince one of your friends to stick with you the entire time, "helping," you go about your daily life. If you don't see a problem with that, then try it again for a week.

[patrickl]

One last thing for whoever said that Target's website seemed pretty accessible . . . This suit began in January, 2006.  My guess is that at some point in the last year and a half Target decided to go ahead and make their site ADA compliant.

I guess you mean me. I checked the last version of 2005 and indeed it doesn't have a single useful alt tag on the frontpage, but further down in the site it does have some. Even though the old version of the site is slightly less usable on my text browser, it's still doable.

For instance it gives something like this (after dozens of lines of menu items and selecting menu items "Men"  and "Briefcases"):

products


   Sort by: [Featured Items____] Go

   View all page 1 of 2 1 2 Right arrow

   Overland Travelware Computer Briefcase - Black

   Overland Travelware Computer Briefcase - Black
   $29.99

   Usually ships within 3 to 5 days.
   Add To Bag

   Embark® Wheeled Briefcase - Black

   Embark® Wheeled Briefcase - Black
   $39.99

   Usually ships within 1 to 2 days.
   Add To Bag

I actually had more trouble finding the briefcases on the site in IE.

It's a difficult site to navigate for seeing people too. Maybe they have even more right to sue target, but I guess they don't have any grounds to do so.

I wonder what the criteria are that this site has to conform to. If a seeing person is assumed to be able to navigate this site then I don't see why a blind person couldn't do so.

Seriously, is there anything really stopping them from using the site? Can't they register or something?

[KenToad]

Bravo, Shmokes, very well-stated and informative.   

[CheffoJeffo]

If the blind people sueing Target just said they were going to boycott Target, they wouldn't get any press.  Other blind people and friends and family of blind people wouldn't know about it. 

Win or lose they have made this an issue worth posting on Arcadecontrols.com.

There is a blind guy in my car club, because of him I programmed our website to be seeing impaired friendly.

Target has more money and staff than my car club, in two weeks they'll have a blind friendly site.  They may even give a huge donation to some blind cause.

I'll be the first to throw a stone at bogus lawsuits, this isn't one of them.

Wait a minute, did I just applaud DD ?

Wow ... guess he made a good point!

My personal belief is that the ADA is a good thing (I wish we had something similar here) and my understanding from back when I was doing more web work was that the prevailing opinion was that the ADA applied to e-commerce services offered over the web, particularly given the work done by w3.

If this suit can settle that issue, then it is probably a good thing and definitely isn't frivilous. If you think it is frivilous, would your opinion change if, say, your children were affected by the issue ?

I'm with the blind folks on this one (and I am not blind and have no living blind relatives).

[Ed_McCarron]

This conversation is really disappointing. It's enlightening to see some of the commentary here in regards to the handicapped. For instance:

Man, if thats the case, and I'm target, I'd put instructions on the site (where their software can find it to read) that state if you are blind, get a sighted person to help you.

There.  I've accommodated the blind.  I've offered a perfectly reasonable way for them to navigate my site.

That is downright insulting. What this essentially shows is a lack of understanding of what it's like to not only be blind, but to be one of the millions of "helpers" who assist the handicap every day of their lives.

Try this on a weekend, say Friday night, put on a blindfold and don't take them off until Monday. With this blindfold on, try and convince one of your friends to stick with you the entire time, "helping," you go about your daily life. If you don't see a problem with that, then try it again for a week.

I'm closer to blind than you give me credit for.

I lost 99% of the vision in one eye due to a blood clot.

Then, I had to have surgery on the other eye.  I was blind for a week.  I spent it sitting on the couch - the 20/800 vision in the other eye was just enough for me to avoid walking into walls.  I didn't even contemplate going near a computer.

Handicaps require work to overcome.  Not lawsuits.

Your example requires 9 days.  I doub't that a blind person will be on target's site for 9 days.  I'm sure, even though its a pain, for the 20 minutes they need to navigate this one website, they can request help.

[Ed_McCarron]

Oh, something else.

How many blind folks who are proud of their independence do you think will 'see' that lawsuit as an insult?

I've worked at the local blind/sight center.  The folks there are uber proud of the fact they get around so well.  Offering to assist one will occasionally get you a response full of attitude.

[shmokes]

I'm not even saying that Target deserves to lose.  From what Patrick is saying, it sounds like maybe their website is fine.  You don't argue the merits of a case until trial.  When Target files a motion to dismiss they're just saying, "Okay . . . lets assume for the moment that everything the plaintiff says is true, and our website is not ADA compliant.  Even then, they have no case because ADA doesn't require compliance from websites."  This is obviously the best solution for Target, because it means they don't have to go to trial and spend thousands of dollars fighting a class action.

But it doesn't mean that at trial they will maintain those assumptions.  They will make the same arguments, but if the site really is navigable, as Patrick says, they'll also argue that they do, in fact, comply with ADA standards.  If the claims of noncompliance are totally without merit, Target will counterclaim for court costs, presumably.  The blind group can't just randomly select Target as a test case because they want a final answer at leas in the 9th circuit, if not from the Supreme Court, as to whether ADA applies to websites.  They may want a test case, but it damned well be someone who really is running a website that isn't ADA compliant, or things are going to get really expensive for them.

[SavannahLion]

This conversation is really disappointing. It's enlightening to see some of the commentary here in regards to the handicapped. For instance:

Man, if thats the case, and I'm target, I'd put instructions on the site (where their software can find it to read) that state if you are blind, get a sighted person to help you.

There.  I've accommodated the blind.  I've offered a perfectly reasonable way for them to navigate my site.

That is downright insulting. What this essentially shows is a lack of understanding of what it's like to not only be blind, but to be one of the millions of "helpers" who assist the handicap every day of their lives.

Try this on a weekend, say Friday night, put on a blindfold and don't take them off until Monday. With this blindfold on, try and convince one of your friends to stick with you the entire time, "helping," you go about your daily life. If you don't see a problem with that, then try it again for a week.

I'm closer to blind than you give me credit for.

I lost 99% of the vision in one eye due to a blood clot.

Then, I had to have surgery on the other eye.  I was blind for a week.  I spent it sitting on the couch - the 20/800 vision in the other eye was just enough for me to avoid walking into walls.  I didn't even contemplate going near a computer.

Fair enough.

My point is, given enough time, a person is going to want to do things besides sit on a couch. This includes things like going out to your favorite restaurant, traveling and of course, using a computer. Do you really want to do any of these things for the rest of your life with assistance (ie a person)? Even worse, do you want to condemn this person for the rest of your life helping you?

You fell ill. Illness is forgiven and often not expected to last for sixty years... well hopefully not. I digress, if you were blind for the next fifty years, do you really want to sit on the couch and do nothing that entire time?

Handicaps require work to overcome.  Not lawsuits.

True enough. But there's a line between working to overcome a handicap and discovering that you're being locked out because of a handicap. If a store refuses to construct a ramp into a store, that would be akin to posting a sign saying, "no ---auto-censored--- allowed." The end result is the same.

Your example requires 9 days.  I doub't that a blind person will be on target's site for 9 days.  I'm sure, even though its a pain, for the 20 minutes they need to navigate this one website, they can request help.

It goes right back to my previous point. Let's say Target isn't the only site. Let's say every site is like that. Twenty minutes would quickly balloon into an hour, then three hours, then every week, every day, for years. Imagine being the child who has to help his father read off websites every weekend? Reverse that.

I lived that exact role for nearly twenty years. It's not a role I have any desire to return to.

[Ed_McCarron]

It goes right back to my previous point. Let's say Target isn't the only site. Let's say every site is like that. Twenty minutes would quickly balloon into an hour, then three hours, then every week, every day, for years. Imagine being the child who has to help his father read off websites every weekend? Reverse that.

I lived that exact role for nearly twenty years. It's not a role I have any desire to return to.

Valid points.

When I first lost the vision in that one eye, I spent (and still spend) time with my good eye closed - to see if I could survive if the other eye went.

I know theres no way I'd be able to use a computer visually - the fonts simply don't get big enough.

I think I'd avoid using the computer.  It might kill me...  But I can't imagine being read to.

[patrickl]

I know theres no way I'd be able to use a computer visually - the fonts simply don't get big enough.

I remember a guy at the university who set the font seriously big and had some sort of microscope like device attached to his glasses (on one eye). That way he could read his programming code one character at a time.

[psik0tik]

This is retarded...it's like a guy with no hands suing a glove manufacture because there aren't any "stump" gloves. If your blind then just do it the old fashion way and go to the store. This comes down to one fact " If you don't accommodate me to perfection I'm going to sue you". I feel for the blind but come on.....they are suing target because they have ---smurfy--- access to they're website....then go shop at walmart. I swear...soon you'll get sued by the alzheimer's people because you didn't have enough signs telling them what store they're in.

[tommy]

 My point is, given enough time,a person is going to want to do things besides sit on a couch.

They can WANT to do whatever they like. The fact is they can't see and therefore they will HAVE to alter their routine to suit it.

Do you really want to do any of these things for the rest of your life with assistance (ie a person)? Even worse, do you want to condemn this person for the rest of your life helping you?

You're going to need someone's help, you can't get passed that fact no matter what.

[patrickl]

I have to agree that it might not make much sense for a blind person to use that Target site. I'm not really sure how they would pick out furniture or clothes from a text based description. On the other hand, it could help alleviate a blind persons life not to have to physically travel to a store to purchase items. It would make them a lot more independent.

[ChadTower]

This is retarded...it's like a guy with no hands suing a glove manufacture because there aren't any "stump" gloves.

It is nothing like that and the reasons why are explicitly explained in detail in this thread.

website != product

website = service

[patrickl]

In some cases the website == the product and then it's even more important to make it accessible to the blind/vision impaired. For instance government sites or online news sites. That's where I get the strongest requirements for making the sites we build accessible for people with poor eyesight.

[ChadTower]

Target is not one of those cases. 

[psik0tik]

Actually it's exactly as I put it. They want a product suited to they're needs. And the product that Target has is the website which has they're product line on it. It's not about the fact that it doesn't support the blind lifestyle. It's the fact that someone wants some money and has come up with a way to get it.....and they probably will. You could probably sue the city you live in right now if you stubbed your toe on a piece of the sidewalk that was sticking up to high. People are too pampered and bleeding hearts are way too abundant. Remember when we were kids (and we as in people over 30) if they didn't have it for you then tough ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- the world still spun and people were still happy. It's not really evolution we are experiencing....well maybe an evolution of greed.

[ChadTower]

I work ten hours a day on retail web services for one of the largest retail chains on the planet.  Just like Target but a whole lot bigger and better with many, many more gov't regulations.  HIPAA, Sarbanes Oxley, ADA, every security protocol short of military level encryption, you name it we must conform to it.  ADA is very low on that priority ladder, lemme tell ya.

[tommy]

You're using the word "work" loosely, right?

[ChadTower]

Hell no.  I get a LOT of work done.  It has a lot of 3 minute breaks where I'm monitoring automated processes in other windows, giving me time to make posts.  That and I have to do evening work 2-3 nights a week and I'm almost never posting then.

[Glaine]

I can't see a blind person

Actually, it is the other way around *wakka wakka*.

[shmokes]

Actually it's exactly as I put it. They want a product suited to they're needs. And the product that Target has is the website which has they're product line on it.

Target's website is not their product and you know it.  They do not sell you their website.  The website is not their product anymore than their physical store is their product.  Both are places that you go to buy their products.  You can arguably call their website a place.  You can arguably call it a service.  But a product?  You've gotta be kidding.

[ChadTower]

It may depend on what is actually on Target's website.  If it's only a retail portal, then it is a service.  If it has other content, like Home Depot's tutorials and product reviews/recommendations, then the website itself may be considered a product.

Looking at Target's site I don't see any of that, so really, the only people to whom Target's website itself is a product is to the Target Corporation business division (presumably from their IS division). 

[patrickl]

Does anyone know what the complaints are about the website? It would really make a big difference if there is some actual reason why they cannot use the site for normal business purposes (like being unable to register for some reason), if they need the site for tutorials or support, or if they are just complaining that the site sux in general.

I'll agree with the last point, but that can hardly be grounds for a law suit (or whatever it was that they started)

[ChadTower]

The complaint is that it is coded in such a way that blind assistance software packages are unable to reasonably translate it into something the blind can use.  Basically, it's too complex for the blind packages to handle.

[Dartful Dodger]

Target's website is not their product and you know it.  They do not sell you their website. 

There's a restaurant down south that sells hamburgers.

The restaurant itself is not their product. They do not sell their restaurant. 

Maybe after shmokes gets his law degree he can defend the restaurant's low quality service to its black customers.

[ChadTower]

Being black is not covered by the ADA.

[leapinlew]

Could youtube be sued because it doesn't offer close caption? Could video game manufacturers be sued because they don't make racing games accessible to people without feet?

[shmokes]

leap,

You are really having trouble with this.  Products are not required to be ADA compliant.  They just aren't.  Target has to have ramps for legless people.  They don't have to stop selling shoes.  People can be sued for failing to comply with the law.  ADA says that retailers have to provide blind people with equal access to their facilities and services. 

Are videogame manufacturers retailers?

No.

Are racing games facilities or services?

No.  (Don't argue.  They really and truly aren't.  Take some business courses if you don't believe me.  Or forget about it since the law wouldn't apply to them even if videogames were services).

The YouTube thing is also a "no", but that question is at least somewhat reasonable.  While YouTube's videos would still probably count as a product more than anything else, Closed Captioning is dealt with in a different section of ADA.  From very briefly skimming the law, it looks like only televised public service announcements are required to have closed captioning, and the stations are not even required to provide the captioning.  The law requires the government to provide the captioning along with the public service announcement, so if the station gets the announcement without the captions, they can run it without the captions.

Anyway, a business only has to make reasonable accomodations.  If providing the accommodations would cost $10 million dollars, or put the company out of business, they won't be required to do it.  Obviously a company like YouTube, that allows users to upload homemade content could not go through and add closed captions to all the videos that get uploaded on a daily basis.

leapinlew, does it occur to you that maybe the reason you can't seem to come up with a ridiculous example that actually works here, is that the present case isn't actually ridiculous?  Just a thought.

[leapinlew]

You are really having trouble with this. 

leapinlew, does it occur to you that maybe the reason you can't seem to come up with a ridiculous example that actually works here, is that the present case isn't actually ridiculous?  Just a thought.

Has it ever occurred to you that I actually am having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind this suit? The reason for my "ridiculous" examples is because I'm trying to actually understand? To me, it looks like a frivolous law suit, but thanks to some articulate explanations - it's becoming more clear. Based on your previous explanations - I thought my youtube and video game examples made sense.

So, while I appreciate the informative response, your pompous attitude can sit-n-spin.

[shmokes]

Okay . . . pull the injured bird card.  On the previous page you likened this suit to an archery group suing target cos their logo makes them shoot arrows at their computer screens.  You can say you were kidding, and I believe that you were inasmuch as you don't really think that the archery group would win that suit.  But the underlying message was that these blind people are ---smurfing--- retards.

I'm sure you'll give me a small amount of latitude for not realizing that your interests in this thread had suddenly become purely academic.

You might also notice that I treated your YouTube question with plenty of respect.  I even took the time to read the law for you (though it's only a google search away if you want to know more).  But you might notice, if you read through the thread, that there have been quite a few examples like that one thrown out already, and I'm not the only one who keeps saying, "That is a product.  Products don't have to be ADA compliant!"  In fact, one of your previous examples was about a piece of software -- not too far removed from a video game if you ask me.  If Tommy asks if shoe manufacturers are liable to people with no feet, and someone points out that products aren't covered, and then Psik0tik, in a sudden fit of originality, says this is just like glove manufacturers getting sued by people with no hands, and someone points out that products aren't covered, and it's been pointed out numerous other times in this thread that the law does not require that products be ADA compliant, eventually, I'm sorry, I have to say, "Products are not covered by ADA.  You know what a product is.  Bringing up example after example of items that are clearly products is ridiculous."

[patrickl]

Still, the target site IS accessable. I'd say it's a crappy site, but that's true both for seeing and non seeing people. No discrimination there.

[KenToad]

Still, the target site IS accessable. I'd say it's a crappy site, but that's true both for seeing and non seeing people. No discrimination there.

It seems premature to suggest that it's a frivolous lawsuit, i.e. "No discrimination there," just because you can't see the point.  I can't see the point either, but I'll continue to suspend my judgment at least until I hear a few of the points made during the actual decision.

[shmokes]

Yeah . . . I'd be interested to see the plaintiff's complaint.  I wouldn't be surprised if I could get it from Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw, but my school (unlike almost every school in the nation) feels the need to torture 1Ls by teaching us to do all our research the old-fashioned way, by book in the law library, before giving us electronic access to everything.  C'est la vie.  Only a couple more months.

[patrickl]

Still, the target site IS accessable. I'd say it's a crappy site, but that's true both for seeing and non seeing people. No discrimination there.

It seems premature to suggest that it's a frivolous lawsuit, i.e. "No discrimination there," just because you can't see the point.  I can't see the point either, but I'll continue to suspend my judgment at least until I hear a few of the points made during the actual decision.

Well I was asking for specifics, but only Chad responded with some broad complaint that they cannot access the site. So my statement is based on that being the actual complaint.

[tommy]

Is there any point in me making my online site for selling contact lenses blind friendly? When i say " is there any point" i mean, if i were a billion dollar company and someone wanted to sue me over it, should i be worried?

Answer that first, then we can talk.

[KenToad]

Is there any point in me making my online site for selling contact lenses blind friendly? When i say " is there any point" i mean, if i were a billion dollar company and someone wanted to sue me over it, should i be worried?

Answer that first, then we can talk.

I would say read Shmokes' replies regarding products versus services.  I have no idea how this would play out regarding niche services, either.  I also don't see how what you're saying relates to the current topic.   

[psik0tik]

Yes they do sell they're website....almost all target commercials say in them "and visit target.com for more valuable info" That is luring people to the website hence it is a selling point hence it can be a "product of" target. And yes it is a service to but it generates income which makes it...again...a product. Go here and read the definition of a product before you start talking.

In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29

[ChadTower]

In order for that to be accurate, you'd have to consider the Target retail building a product as well.  They do the same thing with physical stores.  The website is simply the infrastructure by which they offer their products.  In this regard it is exactly like the building that a store sits in.

EVERYTHING in retail "generates income".  It is all part of the "revenue vs operating cost" equation. 

[hulkster]

i wish i was in a minority...then i could get what i wanted by complaining.

[JamIt]

The air force was interested in linking to one of our web apps and we had to do some tweaking to become Section 508 compliant (an accessibilty guideline created by the government).  Just an FYI, this website http://webxact.watchfire.com/ can help verify your site for compliance.
--JamIt

[ahofle]

Just an FYI, this website http://webxact.watchfire.com/ can help verify your site for compliance.

Thx for the excellent link!

[tommy]

What ever happen to the days where you could run your business how ever the hell you saw fit? Now everyone has something to say about it and even have the balls to try to sue you over it. If you don't like their site or can't use it then don't shop there and move on.

I could see if they went out of their way to discriminate or the site was racist, otherwise get over it. Someone having trouble using a website is their problem and their problem alone, atleast it should be. IF Target wanted to accommodate these people it should be up to them and if not, so be it.

[psik0tik]

Amen

[ahofle]

What ever happen to the days where you could run your business how ever the hell you saw fit?

I don't understand why this is so confusing.
IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!! 
If you think the law is dumb, write your congress person and tell them to exclude blind accessible websites from the ADA.

[psik0tik]

We understand that it's against the law. What tommy is saying is that it's become to uptight.

[tommy]

This is not about it being against the law, it's about money. Someone in this blind persons family is pushing this issue for them.

If i had a site that does not have blind assisted software i would not have to deal with any of this because i have no money, only people with money will be sued if we let this go on.

[ahofle]

I guess my point is that the motives of whomever started the lawsuit are really irrelevant.  I'm sure this whole case will make website accessibility a bigger priority to all but the dumbest corporations and governments.  We've had an ADA project on the back burner for years now where I work, and this lawsuit will almost definitely make it an immediate priority.  So the end result of all this will be good for the blind, even if the instigators are just in it for the money.

And FWIW, I agree that frivolous lawsuits are bringing this country down.

[patrickl]

The air force was interested in linking to one of our web apps and we had to do some tweaking to become Section 508 compliant (an accessibilty guideline created by the government).  Just an FYI, this website http://webxact.watchfire.com/ can help verify your site for compliance.
--JamIt

Hey that is a cool link.

I ran it on the target website and it did come up with 15 errors (with 331 instances) and 44 warnings (with 298) instances. So of course it could be better, but on such a complex website it doesn't seem excessive to me.

[ChadTower]

Whoa.  Our retail website came back with 2 errors in 5 instances.  Nice.

[shmokes]

Yes they do sell they're website....almost all target commercials say in them "and visit target.com for more valuable info" That is luring people to the website hence it is a selling point hence it can be a "product of" target. And yes it is a service to but it generates income which makes it...again...a product. Go here and read the definition of a product before you start talking.

In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29

God, I laugh and I laugh.  If you actually click on psik0tik's link, you'll be in for a rather humorous surprise.  He selected his definition out of multiple offered.  Here is the very first line of the Wiki:

In business, a product is a good or service which can be bought and sold.  In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need. In manufacturing, products are purchased as raw materials and sold as finished goods.

Psik0tik, when we're talking about a retailer's products, which of those three definitions do you think is the actual appropriate one to use? 

[shmokes]

i wish i was in a minority...then i could get what i wanted by complaining.

Me too.  Minorities have it so much better in America than white males. 

Specifically, being blind would be ---smurfing--- awesome.  God, I almost want to gouge out my eyes just to get in on this law suit.

[Ed_McCarron]

Me too.  Minorities have it so much better in America than white males. 

White male IS a minority anymore.  Toss 'middle class' into the mix and I think theres 3 of us left.

Theres 5 people at my shop.  I just had to fill out a equal employment form to be able to bid jobs in the state of Jersey.

I need to break my 5 people down into Asian, Hispanic, Black, AmerInd, Female, and OTHER.

WTF?  Why is white male "OTHER?"

I'm going to change my name to Chief Shaniqua Pablo Running Bull Phong Sharpton.  Maybe that'll make them happy.

Sometimes it just goes too far...

EDit:  Woops, sorry, veering into P&R territory there.  Sorry Tommy.

[tommy]

EDit:  Woops, sorry, veering into P&R territory there.  Sorry Tommy.

Hey, thanks for thinking about me.

[ChadTower]

Specifically, being blind would be ---smurfing--- awesome.  God, I almost want to gouge out my eyes just to get in on this law suit.

With all of the dead kittens around here I'm surprised were not all blind.

[Xam]

I think this is just about shopping, at least according to the linked article from the first post.

For now.

Um . . . no, forever (or until Congress decides to change the law).  When people talk about these law suits like this as being "frivolous", they commonly have severe misconceptions about how the court system works.  If someone sued you for not making your personal website blind-person-friendly, the case would never go to trial.  First, the blind person's lawyer would tell them that they had no case.  But let's say the blind person insisted on suing you, and either represented himself or found an attorney who was willing to represent him in spite of advising him that he had no case (actually telling a blind client that there was any possibility of winning here would be grounds for malpractice, which would end the lawyer's career).  Even here, the case will never go to trial.  You'll simply file for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim.  This means that you concede all of the plaintiff's allegations.  You don't deny any of them.  But even assuming all of the plaintiff's allegations are true, they do not establish a cause of action.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. It also applies to the United States Congress.  The ADA REQUIRES businesses to accommodate blind people.  It specifically mentions retail stores; it specifically mentions blind people. 

The law imposes a duty on me to not do anything that would create an unreasonable risk for you.  If I negligently build a homemade flamethrower out of a Super Soaker squirt gun, and while I'm showing it off, accidentally light some bushes on fire and the fire spreads to your home, burning it down, I am liable.  You have a cause of action, because the law REQUIRES that I exercise reasonable care, and the breach of my duty to you gives you a cause of action.

Now, if the law IMPOSES a duty on all businesses to accommodate provide effective communication for blind people (and, yes, it has been specifically extended to online businesses, in case anybody thought that might be an open loophole), and a business breaches that duty, how is it a frivolous lawsuit for a blind person to sue any more than the hypothetical I gave you above? 

If you don't like it, blame the law, not the judiciary.  It's not like this stems from some "activist court" (as people like to call them), reading a protection for blind people into the constitution where one doesn't exist.  It's just a federal law.  Congress passed it.  It's not unconstitutional.  Therefore Target is required to abide by it.  If they break the law, injured parties have a case.


edit: thread's moving fast.  added quote for clarity

The website is there for blind people to use. From reading the posts on this thread, the problem seems to be that the software the visually impaired are using, is having compatibility issues with the site. If this is true, would it not be wiser to petition the software companies to make a better product?

Xam

[psik0tik]

Yes they do sell they're website....almost all target commercials say in them "and visit target.com for more valuable info" That is luring people to the website hence it is a selling point hence it can be a "product of" target. And yes it is a service to but it generates income which makes it...again...a product. Go here and read the definition of a product before you start talking.

In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29

God, I laugh and I laugh.  If you actually click on psik0tik's link, you'll be in for a rather humorous surprise.  He selected his definition out of multiple offered.  Here is the very first line of the Wiki:

In business, a product is a good or service which can be bought and sold.  In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need. In manufacturing, products are purchased as raw materials and sold as finished goods.

Psik0tik, when we're talking about a retailer's products, which of those three definitions do you think is the actual appropriate one to use? 

It would be the marketing one since we are talking about a website. I didn't think I had to spell it out.

[shmokes]

psik0tik, when we say that the ADA doesn't cover products we don't mean that you can find a line in the statute that says, "Products need not be ADA compliant."  There is no "product exemption" in the ADA.

Understand, when we say that ADA doesn't cover products we are talking about the products in business definition from your Wikipedia link, because we're talking about the products that Target sells and their customers buy. 

The ADA says that retailers must make accommodations to give blind people equal access to their facilities and services.  We are pointing out to people that Tickle-Me-Elmo is not a facility or a service.  It's just a product, and products aren't mentioned in the ADA.  But taking their website, which clearly can be defined as either a facility or a service (and probably both) and saying, "Look, I found this definition of the word "product" that you could apply to the website, so the website must be exempt," is to completely misunderstand what we are saying. 

It's not a matter of showing that their website is a product (which is a retarded claim anyway.  You don't believe it. You just think it could be a convenient legal loophole that can be exploited).  The ADA doesn't say anything about products.  What you must show is that the website ISN'T a facility or service.  Even if it is a product (it isn't in any relevant sense of the word), it is still subject to ADA regulations if it is also a facility or service.

[Ed_McCarron]

Facility or service, huh?

How about the self-serve car wash near me with the braille labels on the push buttons?  I"ll have to get pics next time I'm there.

And don't tell me that they use the same consoles for the walk-up car washes.

[shmokes]

I don't know.  That car wash would definitely have to have ramps and stuff for other disabilities.  But courts use common sense.  They're not going to punish a car wash for not providing equal access to people who could never use the service to begin with.  Anyway, you have to have standing to file suit, and if a person's illegal behavior hasn't harmed you in any way, you have no case.  It would never go to trial.

[tommy]

Is there any point in me making my online site for selling contact lenses blind friendly? When i say " is there any point" i mean, if i were a billion dollar company and someone wanted to sue me over it, should i be worried?

Answer that first, then we can talk.

That's where i was going with this post, and they won't bother if a person could not actually use the product or service.

I feel there is no difference in this and a target website, they would and could not ever really use it.

And, they could not ever really buy anything at the store. Someone would have to do it for them.

[ChadTower]

They may need to have braille signs so that the blind can find out what is behind the door... so that they won't walk in on a car wash in operation.

[patrickl]

That's where i was going with this post, and they won't bother if a person could not actually use the product or service.

I feel there is no difference in this and a target website, they would and could not ever really use it.

And, they could not ever really buy anything at the store. Someone would have to do it for them.

They could for instance buy a TV, an ipod, some toys for their kids, a suitcase or lots of other things.

[Ed_McCarron]

They may need to have braille signs so that the blind can find out what is behind the door... so that they won't walk in on a car wash in operation.

No door.  Its the kind of car wash where you drive in, put in $1.75 in quarters, and get 8 minutes of water.

The braille is on the machine you put the quarters in.

[shmokes]

Is there any point in me making my online site for selling contact lenses blind friendly? When i say " is there any point" i mean, if i were a billion dollar company and someone wanted to sue me over it, should i be worried?

Answer that first, then we can talk.

That's where i was going with this post, and they won't bother if a person could not actually use the product or service.

I feel there is no difference in this and a target website, they would and could not ever really use it.

And, they could not ever really buy anything at the store. Someone would have to do it for them.

Well . . . who knows?  I suppose a blind parent might say that they need to order contact lenses for his non-blind son.  I really have no idea how a court would weigh those circumstances.  Maybe if making a website ADA compliant is almost no extra work whatsoever, they would consider the rare situation that a blind person would have a reason to access the site as enough.  Or maybe, regardless, they would say that the possibility of a blind person having any use for a contact lens site is simply too remote to require the site operator to have to worry about it.  I'm guessing as much as anyone.  I have no familiarity with ADA legislation or lawsuits beyond what little I've read about it for this thread.

[leapinlew]

Not that it matters much, but I've found this thread to be very educational and informative for me. My knee jerk reaction was similar to one anytime I hear a frivolous lawsuit. Lack of ADA compliance knowledge is the culprit.

Now I am curious of the details surrounding this case. As in, what did the blind folks do to try to get Target in compliance? It seems it would  make good business sense for Target to make their website more ADA compatible. I'm sure in hindsight they would much rather make their website more accessible than spend dollars on legal issues and the related PR issues.

[shmokes]

I feel there is no difference in this and a target website, they would and could not ever really use it.

And, they could not ever really buy anything at the store. Someone would have to do it for them.

Tommy, you made this argument earlier, and I thought it was as crazy then as I do now.  How can you possibly conclude that a blind person would have no use in accessing the Target website?  Can blind people use iPods?  Dumbbells? Telephones? Sheets?  Stereos?  CDs?  Audiobooks?  Cookware? Glasses (the kind you drink with, not the kind you read with)? Towels? Shampoo? Soap? Diapers? Plates/bowles? Toasters? Coffee Makers? Microwave ovens? Teapots? Toothpaste? Alarm Clocks?  GPS navagation units (with text-to-speach directions, of course)?

All this and more can be found on Target's website?  Now . . . imagine for a second that you are blind.  Close your eyes if it is helpful.  Here is the scenario:

You cannot drive, obviously.  You wish to obtain a set of 35 Lbs. dumbbells, a clock radio, a frying pan, and the new Modest Mouse album.  There is a Target store barely a mile away from your house - a 30 minute walk for a person with usable eyes.  A couple of hours for you, but certainly doable.

Now, Tommy, think very hard before answering this question.  As a blind person, which of the following would you prefer:

A) Two hours to walk to the store, make your purchases, and the 8 hours to walk home (with 70 Lbs. of dumbbell, and a bunch of other ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- to carry).

or

B) Twenty minutes to add items to a virtual shopping cart, five minutes to check out.  All items delivered directly to my front door by my friendly neighborhood UPS man.


Are you really entirely sure that a blind person has no use for Target's website?  Because, while it is certainly a convenience for me, a person with perfect vision, it strikes me as a ---smurfing--- godsend to a blind person who literally risks his life every time he ventures out to make use of the brick & mortar store.

[tommy]

Are you really entirely sure that a blind person has no use for Target's website? 

I feel that even with anything software would add to a site to aid in helping the blind that it would still never really, fully, make this person able to use the site with absolutely no help from a person who can see and translate all that into shopping on their own. In that case, there is no need to change the site and just let another person help you out to find what you need.

Blind people are at a disadvantage, its a sad thing, but it's true and i really can't see this little thing making any real difference in their buying habits.

There is no substitution for sight and i do not feel your other senses can replace them in anyway. You will need help from another person. Period.

[patrickl]

That's where you are wrong. Blind people are perfectly capable to use websites on their own. It just takes some consideration from the site builders.

[ChadTower]

Plus, if approached, a retail store will assign an employee to help a disabled person out during their shopping trip. 

[tommy]

That's where you are wrong. Blind people are perfectly capable to use websites on their own. It just takes some consideration from the site builders.

I may be wrong, i'm not blind and i never had to imagine having to do anything without being able to see, but that's how i see it while able to see.

[shmokes]

Blind people can and do use websites unaided.  Who the ---fudgesicle--- are these helpers you're talking about, anyway?  Some blind guy lives alone.  What's he gonna do, go next door and ask the neighbors to come over and help him order something online?  Why would he need help from somebody to navigate a compliant website?  What is so difficult about typing iPod into the search box, checking the price, clicking add to cart, clicking checkout and typing in your address and credit card information (which can be saved for ease of use in subsequent purchases)?  If your software will tell you what the buttons do and what the fields in a form are, that's all the blind person needs.  And if he can immediately jump to the correct button (think of how the search feature in Firefox works) because they use standardized alt-tags, he could conceivably navigate the site more efficiently than you and I do using a mouse (think of how knowing keyboard commands dramatically speeds up your computer use). 

[tommy]

Who the ---fudgesicle--- are these helpers you're talking about, anyway? 

Family, friends, people who care about this blind person and know that trying to live your life blind is not an easy thing to do and even not a thing that is possible while not being able to see.

Why would he need help from somebody to navigate a compliant website? 

A compliant site is just an aid, not a solve all problems for the blind. You can't possibly think not being able to see is not going to handicap a person form doing everyday things we take for granted, like shopping online or otherwise.

What I'm saying is at some point, right, some point, someone is going to have to help this person that can see, right? And if a blind person cannot do all of this on his own (like i believe they can't) then they have no need to be on a site if they can't see.

What's next, being able to drive blind with a braille steering wheel and a voice saying, "stop, turn left, hey, watch out, you're going to crash!!"

[patrickl]

That's where you are wrong. Blind people are perfectly capable to use websites on their own. It just takes some consideration from the site builders.

I may be wrong, i'm not blind and i never had to imagine having to do anything without being able to see, but that's how i see it while able to see.

It's really simple. Go to the site and imagine you can only read the text. That's how a blind person will read the site. Works perfectly fine (if the site builder doesn't make it unnecessarily difficult by poor website design)

[ChadTower]

A compliant site is just an aid, not a solve all problems for the blind.

It's not meant to be a solution to all problems for the blind.  It is meant to be a solution for one problem for the blind:  online shopping.

[shmokes]

people who care about this blind person and know that trying to live your life blind is not an easy thing to do and even not a thing that is possible while not being able to see.

You mean like the people who passed the ADA, making it so one web programmer and a couple hours of spare time completely solves the problem entirely for thousands of people all at once, instead of trying to solve the problem by finding thousands of helpers each and every time the blind person wants to go online?  I find your argument that, "C'mon, these people are going to be forced to get help and one point or another," argument thoroughly unconvincing. 

I mean, what's the use in freedom of information?  Why should governments be required to publish laws.  At some point, right, some point, a lawyer is going to have to help you.  You may be able to look up some stuff, you may be able to figure some stuff out, but eventually there will be a problem that you need a lawyer for.  If a layperson cannot do all this on his own (like I believe he can't) then he has no need of access to the laws.

You see that the logic just doesn't work out.  It's not a matter of, "at some point the person will still need help, so if the problem isn't 100% solved there's no use doing anything about it at all."  That doesn't make sense.  Why have police officers if, at some point you will be the victim of a crime and there will be no police officers around to help you?  Why have public schools if at some point a person will run into a situation that their education has not prepared them for?  Why have cars if at one point it will break down and you will find yourself walking?  These things are meant to make your life better, not perfect.

The ADA does not replace eyeballs.  It doesn't perfect a blind person's life.  It makes it better.  Will they ever need help with a website?  Yeah . . . maybe.  But being able to do it on your own 95% of the time is a damned sight better than needing someone to do it for you 100% of the time. 

[shmokes]

And, by the way, Tommy.  Have you ever known a blind person?  If not, I imagine that you have at least seen one.  They do not typically have access to a full-time personal assistant.  If you were blinded today by an industrial accident, would you have the resources to have someone to guide you through life all the time?  Even if you have a wife, presumably your earning potential is ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- now.  You sure as hell ain't making glass for a living without eyes.  Your wife is now the main breadwinner.  You think she's going to be around to baby-step you through life? 

By and large, blind people, whether they like it or not, have to just ---smurfing--- get on with it.  Even if finding someone willing to help was a simple matter (of course, it's not -- who the hell wants their life's purpose to be giving purpose to somebody else's life?), finding someone ABLE to help you on a scale like this would be nearly impossible.  People have their own responsibilities.  Blind people get to do things on their own whether they like it or not.  There is generally no alternative available to them.

[tommy]

people who care about this blind person and know that trying to live your life blind is not an easy thing to do and even not a thing that is possible while not being able to see.

You mean like the people who passed the ADA, making it so one web programmer and a couple hours of spare time completely solves the problem entirely for thousands of people all at once, instead of trying to solve the problem by finding thousands of helpers each and every time the blind person wants to go online?  I find your argument that, "C'mon, these people are going to be forced to get help and one point or another," argument thoroughly unconvincing. 

I mean, what's the use in freedom of information?  Why should governments be required to publish laws.  At some point, right, some point, a lawyer is going to have to help you.  You may be able to look up some stuff, you may be able to figure some stuff out, but eventually there will be a problem that you need a lawyer for.  If a layperson cannot do all this on his own (like I believe he can't) then he has no need of access to the laws.

You see that the logic just doesn't work out.  It's not a matter of, "at some point the person will still need help, so if the problem isn't 100% solved there's no use doing anything about it at all."  That doesn't make sense.  Why have police officers if, at some point you will be the victim of a crime and there will be no police officers around to help you?  Why have public schools if at some point a person will run into a situation that their education has not prepared them for?  Why have cars if at one point it will break down and you will find yourself walking?  These things are meant to make your life better, not perfect.

The ADA does not replace eyeballs.  It doesn't perfect a blind person's life.  It makes it better.  Will they ever need help with a website?  Yeah . . . maybe.  But being able to do it on your own 95% of the time is a damned sight better than needing someone to do it for you 100% of the time. 

There is a difference in not being able to do something because of a handicap and not being able to do something because you are not smart enough or are ignorant.

All the rest of your comments about police and lawyers are just silly and do not apply here.

[tommy]

And, by the way, Tommy.  Have you ever known a blind person?  If not, I imagine that you have at least seen one.  They do not typically have access to a full-time personal assistant.  If you were blinded today by an industrial accident, would you have the resources to have someone to guide you through life all the time?  Even if you have a wife, presumably your earning potential is ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- now.  You sure as hell ain't making glass for a living without eyes.  Your wife is now the main breadwinner.  You think she's going to be around to baby-step you through life? 

By and large, blind people, whether they like it or not, have to just ---smurfing--- get on with it.  Even if finding someone willing to help was a simple matter (of course, it's not -- who the hell wants their life's purpose to be giving purpose to somebody else's life?), finding someone ABLE to help you on a scale like this would be nearly impossible.  People have their own responsibilities.  Blind people get to do things on their own whether they like it or not.  There is generally no alternative available to them.

I have seen one, and known one, they have a person who comes to their house every week and takes care the things for that person that they cannot do on their own.

Remember, this is also about being worthy of being sued over or not.

[tommy]

If i lost the ability to see i would not be able to continue my job, i would not be able to earn a living, but i would hope the people who love me and care about me would know that i cannot do it alone and help me. They would not have to dedicate their live to me, but just visit me every now and then and make sure I'm ok, make sure i don't need anything or any help with something. If i did not have that support i would be up shits creeks, but i would not be worried about a target website. People who are blind and need help do not worry about things like websites, only people who are ok and have family worry about suing others.

[ChadTower]

making it so one web programmer and a couple hours of spare time completely solves the problem

This is what I do for a living... sites exactly like target.com... 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.

[Ed_McCarron]

Give us an estimate, Chad.

Are we talking 100 man hours?  1000?  5000?

I'd wager 1000, easy.  So, assuming Chads across the country are making $23 an hour, thats $23k.  Not a small chunk of change, but cheaper than the lawsuit and its associated PR debacle.

Problem is, betcha Target doesn't get to simply bring their site into compliance.  Someone wants money.

Who?

The execs at the ADA (hey, gotta pay their salaries somehow), the lawyers, and the media who gets to report about it.

How much you think the blind folks are gonna get?

[ChadTower]

Definitely depends on how much tweaking has to be done in order to come into compliance.  If it's just aesthetic, that's not so bad, but if there are any functional changes (i.e. changes to the site workflow or transaction engine) then there has to be substantial regression testing along the way and that will add quite a bit of manhours to the effort.  It's crucial that nothing be broken or even de-optimized in the process.

Of course, that all also depends on whether or not target.com actually turns a profit or if it's simply a loss leader for Target.  Many large retailers run their retail websites around a break even point because they don't do enough volume via the web.

[patrickl]

If they develop the site with the blind compliance in mind it doesn't cost that much extra.

[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]

 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.

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.

[patrickl]

Because the web moves so fast, companies redo their websites every 5 years anyway.

I don't see any outlandish requirements for ADA compliance. See the Written ADA Guidelines
for an indication. These are all pretty common things that you already should do even if you don't specifically have the vision impaired in mind.

Take the Target site. It's pretty difficult to navigate for a seeing person too. If they would just clean up their site and make it more accessible to seeing people (and increase their sales from them actually), the site would be a lot easier to use for blind people too. They would easily make up for their investment by higher sales.

I still really wonder what the actual complaint is. It really matters if the site just doesn't work at all for some reason or if they just think it's a crappy site.

[Ed_McCarron]

Being Korean is not a disability.

It is if I want to read a non-Korean website.

[ChadTower]

It is if I want to read a non-Korean website.

Disability is defined under the ADA.  Not speaking a language isn't in there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying compliance with the ADA is technically difficult... I'm speaking about the large retailer's ability to make rapid change to their web storefront.  I'm speaking at least as much about their desire to make such changes... the web storefront is pretty low priority, in terms of corporate resources, for many retail chains.  I guarantee you Target cares a whole hell of a lot more for the web/VPN apps that drive the national distribution chain and communication with suppliers and vendors.  The company I work for certainly does and our web storefront is much better (and also HIPAA compliant) than Target's.

[jbox]

It's also a non-trivial point that major retailers also have a vested interest in *not* making this stuff easy, not because of blind people of course, but because these same features also make it easier for screen-scrapers like "cheapestfruitjuice.com" to tell people to shop at one of their competitors instead. 

A "Nice" webpage (singular) is of course easy to build. "Nice" transactions are not. 

[shmokes]

Well . . . ADA was passed in 1990 and 1992, I think.  So it definitely predates Target's online presence.  I don't remember when, exactly, the internet was approved for commercial use, but Mosaic wasn't released until 1993 and Netscape in 1994.  Target probably wasn't online until at least five years after ADA was passed.

Now . . . the internet was new, and it might just never have occurred to them to make the site ADA compliant.  Hell . . . there may not have been a way to even make a site ADA compliant back then.  Who knows whether the readers blind people use today even existed back then?  But at the same time, when Target first made a presence on the web, it wasn't a giant storefront.  It would have been a little corporate web page with some info on it and that's all.  You know they've completely rebuilt their website from scratch at least once or twice since then.  But, seriously . . . even if it was going to cost Target $10,000 to make their website ADA compliant, which I doubt (I know it wasn't your claim), that's pocket change to them.  They've probably spent that five times over so far just fighting this case.  Just in the first quarter of this year they did $10.3 billion in sales generating a $438 million profit.  When numbers like $10,000 are thrown around, they sound big.  But it helps to have some perspective.

[boykster]

From a wiki article on the history of target

Target.com: owns and oversees the company's e-commerce initiatives, such as the Target.com domain. Founded in early 2000 as target.direct, it was formed by separating the company's existing e-commerce operations from its retailing division, and combining it with its Rivertown Trading direct marketing unit into a stand-alone subsidiary.[25] In 2002, target.direct and Amazon.com's subsidiary Amazon Enterprise Solutions created a partnership where Amazon.com would provide order fulfilment and guest services for Target.com in exchange for fixed and variable fees. This electronic commerce relationship between target.direct and Amazon Enterprise Solutions will last until August 2010.[30][31] After the company sold Marshall Field's and Mervyns in 2004, target.direct became Target.com.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Subsidiaries

[tommy]

I might be able to get behind this "help the blind" thing alot more if they didn't try to sue the company. If they wanted to just make it so blind people were able to navigate websites easier and just make life generally easier they could have gone about it in another way. The way they are going about this now i could care less about helping anyone.

[shmokes]

How do you know?  The case hasn't even gone to trial yet.  Where are you getting these facts?  I mean, if I drive up to Ft. Lauderdale tomorrow and pick up a bunch of glass from you, under the understanding that I'll Paypal you the money on Friday, it'd be pretty lame if on Monday I'm served with process for breach of contract.  But what if you call me on Monday and I say that I decided not to pay you?  Or what if you call me and I say, "Yeah . . . I'm going to get to that.  Sorry."  And then I say the same thing the next Monday.  And the next Monday.  And the next Monday. 

Is there no point when it becomes appropriate to sue somebody?  What if Target was fully aware of the requirements of the law and simply ignored it because they disagree with it?

[tommy]

Is there no point when it becomes appropriate to sue somebody?  What if Target was fully aware of the requirements of the law and simply ignored it because they disagree with it?

Having a site that was not up to requirements is no reason to sue. It may be time to take some action against that company but suing should not be that action.

Suing a company is reserved for people who have been hurt or caused pain or have taken a loss by no fault of their own.  No one is hurt here in anyway by this.

Even though i don't think this is a problem, now that it is out in the open they can fix it. They should not be sued over this.

If you want to support blind people or handicapped people that's fine, but not this way.

[shmokes]

Tommy, it's out in the open BECAUSE they sued them!  For all you know they've written them a thousand letters and called a thousand times telling them, "Your website is required by law to be ADA compliant and is not."

What you are saying, Tommy, makes no sense at all.  In the glass situation above I have a legal duty to pay you.  I would agree that legal action should not be your FIRST option, but what are you supposed to do when every other option has proven ineffective?  Target has a legal duty them, just like I have a legal duty to pay you, or your neighbor has a legal duty to keep his vehicles parked on his side of the property line.  You ask your neighbor to move his car, of course.  But if the ---maternal-smurf--- refuses, you turn to a legal remedy.

You may think nobody is hurt here, but many people would disagree.  Importantly, the law disagrees with you.  Target is required to provide them access to their website.  If they don't, the blind people are hurt by this.  Target is given a business license under the understanding that it will abide by the rules society places on it.  Society says, if you want to do business here we need you to accommodate this specific subset of people who got kind of a ---smurfy--- deal.  As pointed out already, Target does pretty well under this arrangement (half a billion dollars profit in the first three months of this year alone).  I just really don't think society is asking that much in return.

[tommy]

  I mean, if I drive up to Ft. Lauderdale tomorrow and pick up a bunch of glass from you, under the understanding that I'll Paypal you the money on Friday, it'd be pretty lame if on Monday I'm served with process for breach of contract.  But what if you call me on Monday and I say that I decided not to pay you?  Or what if you call me and I say, "Yeah . . . I'm going to get to that.  Sorry."  And then I say the same thing the next Monday.  And the next Monday.  And the next Monday. 

Why would you use this as an example? This is a situation where you would owe me money and i would be able to take legal action and it is justified. This has nothing to do with a website not being up to date and surly shows no reason to sue them over.

I understand this is how they chose to bring this out in the open, but it does not mean it's the right way and that they should get any money out of it. If the site is not up to code, go to the media, have them shut down the site and even the store, but this was not the "blinds" family's primary concern because they wanted to get rich over this.

I guess we can go on for days talking about this and I'd rather not. This is not a worthy reason to sue the store over and i can't be convinced otherwise.

[ChadTower]

Does anyone here have some info on what other avenues were tried before the lawsuit?  I'm willing to bet that they tried everything else... this type of lawsuits costs a lot of $$$ for the plaintiff too.  There won't be any punitive damages or court cost awards here.

[ahofle]

I'm willing to bet that they tried everything else... this type of lawsuits costs a lot of $$$ for the plaintiff too. 

I agree.  I think one has to be pretty naive to think a large corporation would spend a DIME to help someone who 'asks nicely' if it didn't also serve to increase their bottom line or shareholder's approval.

[shmokes]

Why would you use this as an example? This is a situation where you would owe me money and i would be able to take legal action and it is justified. This has nothing to do with a website not being up to date and surly shows no reason to sue them over.

Because, Tommy, a contract to exchange goods for money is only one way to to create a legal duty, but a legal duty is a legal duty.  Maybe I have a legal duty to pay you for the glass you cut for me.  Maybe I have a legal duty to respect your property line.  Maybe I have a legal duty to warn you when my actions, whether negligent or not, create an unreasonable risk for you.  Maybe I have a legal duty to you because I am your landlord and must keep your apartment/house in a state of habitability.  Maybe I have a legal duty to pay attention to traffic lights so I don't broadside you as you drive through an intersection on green.  Duties can very from place to place, or from situation to situation.  In buyer beware states you'd damned well better get an inspection before you buy a house, because the seller has no duty to tell you anything about it.  He can't lie in response to specific questions, but if you don't ask about termites, he doesn't have to tell you.  In duty to disclose states, however, the seller DOES have a duty to tell you about the termites, and if he doesn't he has breached that duty and is liable to you for damages.

The point is, duties arise from things other than simple business transactions.   You don't get to sue me for welshing on the glass deal because what I did was morally wrong.  You get to sue me because I breached my legal duty to you.  If my legal duty to you is to build/alter my website in a way that will allow you to access it, I must fulfill this duty for the exact same reasons that I must pay you for the glass or stop at red lights. 

[ChadTower]

In other words, shmokes is totally full of duty.

[ahofle]

In other words, shmokes is totally full of duty.

 

[jbox]