Interesting; I truthfully didn't know such technology was readily avaliable. One further question however...assuming a lawsuit such as this skyrockets into every sector of the disabled population. How would a double arm amputee be able to use a computer efficiently? Or to further compound the issue, how would a blind double arm amputee be able to use such technology? If they were not, would it be justifiable to sue?

Thanks for the information!

And again, what the issue with using the 1-800 number?

Seriously the ADA IMHO was not passed and concived to allow nitpickery on such levels it really was not. Ramps for wheelchairs? No issue, crossing walks that make sounds to ident the direction that is safe cool , Whats next, wheelchair accessable F-22's? Yes its a ludacris comparison but this seems to be the direction we are heading eh?

Reminds me of when I noticed the drive-up ATM has braille on it...

The Target homepage uses the appropriate ALT tags for their text imagery it seems. ALT tags are the text-descriptors for images. If you turn off images in your browser, you'll see them in place of images. I do not know if readers for the blind read ALT tags, but they should. It would be pretty dumb if they didn't considering the ALT tag has been around since the dawn of HTML as at the time most people used text-only browsers anyway.

Originally posted by Kruel
Still, it's pretty ridiculous that someone's suing over this. I mean if you can't read (listen to) what's on the website, just shop somewhere else. Forcing them to change their site is quite simply, bullying.

here here.

so sick of all this disability nonsense.

Target is not a public service, it's a retailer. If you can't get through the door (figuratively speaking) shop someplace else.

even in the dirt world, why MUST I have wheelchair access in my shop. If i want people in the shop in wheelchairs, then I must create access, but surely this is my decision as store owner.

i never did understand this.

I dont get it. "X" marks the spot, you can see the sign from blocks away, the sign itself is a target, how is that not accessible?

Originally posted by FredT
Again what is wrong with calling in the order?

I never do anything over the phone that I can do online. Calling's a hassle. I know some people prefer to talk to someone, but I would think Target would prefer online ordering so they don't have to pay staff to take orders.

Im sorry but this is completely out of control.

Who is next? Ford? Because they dont make automobiles that blind people can drive?


Im curious. How does someone who is blind shop on a retail site? I, being a chic, shop a LOT. I shop by viewing pictures - and they better be good pictures or I dont consider buying.

Is there technology available that someone creates the image of a shirt into your brain so you can somehow see it? Im not trying to be a jerk...I just dont get it

I happen to know disabled people who make a point of suing stores for not being in compliance with the ADA. They get a good secondary boost to their income this way.

Didn't I just see a story about a guy who is suing an entire town for being ADA non-compliant? I think it was on the news a couple of days or a week ago.

Some people are just doing this to profit off the corporations, which in turn raises prices for the rest of us.

Originally posted by FredT
And again, what the issue with using the 1-800 number?

Nothing. If you already know what you want. Hard to comparison shop on the phone, though.

Seriously the ADA IMHO was not passed and concived to allow nitpickery on such levels

I don't think it's nit-picky that a perceived denial of access that wouldn't be lawful in a real-world store is taking place in an online equivalent.

Retailers, as a place of public accommodation, have certain accessibility responsibilities under the ADA, as we know. Now, do these responsibilities extend to retailer websites? I guess it's for the court to decide and I think it's good that the issue will be considered.

Now the larger picture...

This case can be viewed as more than just the visually impaired vs. Target, though. Looking forward, it highlights important notions about a future where we all will become more-and-more dependent on "online" technology that takes on the mantle of a public utility. As this evolution takes place we need to ensure that those who can realize a great benefit from this future are not left behind.

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
Nothing. If you already know what you want. Hard to comparison shop on the phone, though.

What about print catalogs? Have department stores ever been sued for not print braille ones? Or even they did, not giving an adequate description of the item pictured?

This really is going a bit too far.

Target is not a federal/public works. Sueing Target because their website is not blind-accessible is like a guy sueing Victoria's Secret because they don't sell any male products (that I know of). Really by Target not making their website handicapped accessible, they're only catering to a certain market and that's ok because plenty of other corporations and businesses do this. As a matter of fact from what I'm concerned, companies spend millions upon billions in Marketing research to cater to their specific market.

In my opinion the ADA should really apply to government and public works.

I got to know a blind kid in my school and he every time I see him, he's using a laptop in class because it's one of the services afforded to him. But I don't think he's ever complained about online accessibility.

Shattered OUT...