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My information is a bit out of date, so I might be wrong on a couple of points.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?