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

[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)