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

[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.