I believe it is an attack against Target, but I do not have any problem with that. I worked for Target HR and I have never worked for a worse company in my life. When I left Target for greener pastures I signed documents saying that I would not discuss insider details of hiring and firing or what happens behind the big screen, but I can say that the horrors I experienced there would make your head spin off your body. They do not want people with any disabilities working at Target but they promote the crap out of them. Walmart seems to be the big store that everyone picks on but I can say from experience that if you have a human soul do not shop at a target store.

As retarded as this suit is, having private retail businesses that cater to the public follow a set of minimum standards for providing the means for the handicapped or disable to access their business is a must. Capitalism alone will not achieve the needed result as it would be dependent on everyone else taking moral objection to the retailer not providing access. As there is no guarantee that would happen, guidelines must be set to deter discrimination. A business that opens its doors to the public has no more right to deny access to a handicapped person than it does to gays or midgets (I'm an ass, I know).

That being said, it is clear Target has provided avenues of purchase for the blind. They have satisfied their obligation to allow unrestricted access to their products. Nothing more should be expected of them. Any further measures taken on their part should be an act of compassion, not mandate.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
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.

I listen to a talk/law show and the host was talking about a group of individuals that look for ADA compliance issues, and sue for small things like a handicap bar being mounted on a wall, but off 1/2 inch from the guidelines.. they are making thousands of dollars from these stores and restaurants. Its ludicrous lawsuits like these and the Target suit that make me care LESS for the disabled in this country. Harsh I know, but true.

I am both blind and deaf and I will soon be filing a lawsuit against those who've argued that the lawsuit against Target is not B.S. because you did not design your posts in a way that I can interpret them.

Okay, so I'm not blind or deaf. If I were, the analogy would be fitting in every way. Even the fact that I'd be selectively suing only SOME of the "offenders."

Once the trial gets under way, I'm sure we'll see that the lawsuit was filed by somebody with some other grudge against Target who decided to use his blindness as a weapon. Chances are, they've been doing exactly that most of their life.

Several questions need to be answered before ruling in favor of the plaintiff. Such a ruling would set a precedent which would have to be followed by everyone else from then on.

1. At what point is a site mainstream enough that the legal system can force it to be readable by text-to-speech programs? What about commercial web sites whose sole purpose is the display of images? Should Photobucket be sued because blind people can't look at the pictures?

2. When requiring a web site to display its information in a certain form (text) instead of others (images, animations), where do you draw the line between stopping discrimination and violating freedom of speech? If the government can say a web site must display its information in text format, does that mean the government can require all speech only be done in text format?

3. Will this pave the way for deaf people to sue music companies? Would a ruling in favor of the plaintiff allow a mute person to sue the producers of American Idol because only people who can speak can get on it?

4. What about languages? If web sites have to be accessible to everyone, should they be required to translate into every concievable language known to man?

5. My dog can't get on Wal-Mart.com. Can I sue them for animal cruelty?

On the face of it, this lawsuit sounds totally idiotic. But did you know!?!?!

In the state of Connecticut (and some others as well).......it is legal for a blind person to hunt. With a firearm!

No joke!

this is lame...

disabled people might not alway be able to do what a person without said disability can do.

it blows. trust me...been dealing with it myself for 12 years now.

target should be able to set their site up however they want.

if blind shopper a's software can't recognize the deal, i guess he can shop at wal mart.
telephone
it's really a non issue

Originally posted by mattifikation
I am both blind and deaf and I will soon be filing a lawsuit against those who've argued that the lawsuit against Target is not B.S. because you did not design your posts in a way that I can interpret them.

Since the posts on this form are rendered in text format they are readable by pretty much any form of text to speech software, though the site fails WCAG 1.0 [Priority 1] (109 remarks) 107 of them are pretty much simply missing alt tags (which is a requirement of the html standard anyway) and 2 missing title tags for iframes.

With minor tweaking this site could be reasonably compliment to accessibility standards.

Originally posted by mattifikation
1. At what point is a site mainstream enough that the legal system can force it to be readable by text-to-speech programs? What about commercial web sites whose sole purpose is the display of images?

All sites are legally required by law depending on which country the website is hosted in to be reasonably accessible to the disabled, its generally not heavenly enforced with small sites because the vast majority of websites are junk written by people who dont know a thing about how the web works. However if websites were written properly in the first place in most cases they would already be at an acceptable standard to be access by anyone using any medium, be it X browser or x text to speech program.

The fact that they arnt is simply because companies hire people who either don't know how to write sites properly or are put on unreasonable deadlines and unable to finish the job properly.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Should Photobucket be sued because blind people can't look at the pictures?

Funny you should pick that website, any reason why?

I ask because photobucket is (with the exception or 3 errors) WCAG 1.0 priority 1 complaint.

Originally posted by mattifikation
2. When requiring a web site to display its information in a certain form (text) instead of others (images, animations), where do you draw the line between stopping discrimination and violating freedom of speech? If the government can say a web site must display its information in text format, does that mean the government can require all speech only be done in text format?

No one is saying your site cant be full of images, video, animations or anything else, what people are saying is your site should be standard complaint so anyone who visits it knows what the hell is on the site, in fact its generally in the website owners interest to make sure there site is complaint because if it isnt you simply get less visits and potentially less money, it doesn't get any simpler.

Originally posted by mattifikation
3. Will this pave the way for deaf people to sue music companies? Would a ruling in favor of the plaintiff allow a mute person to sue the producers of American Idol because only people who can speak can get on it?

web standards and accessibility and listening to music are two completely different things, there not relevant in this case.

Originally posted by mattifikation
4. What about languages? If web sites have to be accessible to everyone, should they be required to translate into every concievable language known to man?

ever heard of Google translator? Regardless the language a site is in and making your site standards complaint are again two completely different things and not relevant here.

You cant translate your site into every language in this world, its not possible for one person to do because no one person knows every language, however you can make your site standards complaint, its not hard, it doesn't require any extra knowledge and it can be easily automated.

Originally posted by mattifikation
5. My dog can't get on Wal-Mart.com. Can I sue them for animal cruelty?

Now your being stupid.

Originally posted by Edn
Now your being stupid.

You're*

It's a common mistake, I assure you.

I can't wait until the day they target the non-mainstream music industry using these types of tactics. Ever since the major boost of digital music, a lot of indie musicians are getting the attention they deserve because we have a medium to release our music through and garner major attention. This is as criminal as murder when it comes to mainstream industry.

Pretty soon you'll be seeing MTV backed lawsuits using deaf people as their own tool to tax everyone who doesn't fall under some ridiculous guideline that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Whatever isn't common sense courtesy shouldn't be something that has to do with equality. Seriously. Some things are simply NOT designed for people with disabilities (both acquired and genetic), while that shouldn't handicap people from trying to excel, it shouldn't force everybody around them to bend over while they stick their you know what up your you know where.

Again, whatever is common courtesy and common sense. No extra nonsense. (Obviously rails & ramps & brail on physical items, for example)

Originally posted by Donoso

Originally posted by Edn
Now your being stupid.

You're*

It's a common mistake, I assure you.

I assume your reffering to my spelling there? Apology's I do try but I dont get it right all the time.

On that note, I got a warning for that comment. Apology's to mattifikation I was not calling you stupid, I was calling you comment stupid and a little immature for the subject we are discussing.

Originally posted by Donoso
Whatever isn't common sense courtesy shouldn't be something that has to do with equality. Seriously. Some things are simply NOT designed for people with disabilities (both acquired and genetic), while that shouldn't handicap people from trying to excel, it shouldn't force everybody around them to bend over while they stick their you know what up your you know where.

I don't think people understand, the internet has been designed to be used by the disabled, there are standards set by the W3C. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 are the current guide lines set to allow you to make your site easily accessible to people with disability's, there not hard to follow, just as the CSS and HTML guidelines are not hard to follow, all it requires is for you to not cut corners.

To be perfectly honest, the guidelines set by the W3C should be enforced fully, its sites that don't follow the standards that cause incompatibility's with users and servers, its also them that cause instability on the internet.

You wouldn't let a car manufacturer's cut corners and not follow the guide lines, the internet is no different.

Originally posted by apc
As retarded as this suit is, having private retail businesses that cater to the public follow a set of minimum standards for providing the means for the handicapped or disable to access their business is a must. Capitalism alone will not achieve the needed result as it would be dependent on everyone else taking moral objection to the retailer not providing access. As there is no guarantee that would happen, guidelines must be set to deter discrimination. A business that opens its doors to the public has no more right to deny access to a handicapped person than it does to gays or midgets (I'm an ass, I know).

I disagree with both points here.

In entrepreneurial societies there will always be some wise soul who will see a market opportunity. If no-one else is giving the blind a web medium to shop, then there's a big hole to fill. If you were the only site on the web accessible by the blind, you'd have a hell of a user base loyal to your business.

As for the comment about 'denying' access by not 'providing' access, where does that twisted logic come from? If someone is too damn fat to fit through my door, does that mean I am denying them access to my shop?

It's a courtesy, not a right!

This is like me sueing my own butt because of the explosive diarhea I had. It caused me a lot of pain so I should get $100 million for my agony. Then another case against the people who made the air freshener spray for $50 million because there wasn't any left in the can. So I got dizzy from the smell and fell and hit my head. That sink made my head split open so I'll sue the makers of that for another $50 million because it was too hard.

On the way to the hospital I stopped at McDonalds and got a cup of coffee. It was hot coffee that was just made, so I'm sueing them too. What? Someone already did that and won? Damn!!!

Ever look at software patent lawsuits? Those are a complete joke.

It's not a lawsuit, but Steve Ballmer of Microsoft actually wanted to copyright the word Windows at one time. Imagine if he had actually got that. He'd be able to sue for anything with the word Windows on it.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by nightmare_david]

Most lawsuits are for the profit of lawyers. The lawyer gets his cut, and expenses, and if there's anything left, it's divvied up by the winners. And it's lawyers that push lawsuits.I mention this because I see a lot of people here acting like the suit is for profit. Unless this is a blind lawyer, I doubt a class action suit will buy much.

And, while I see the logic of letting profit drive inovation in the marketplace, it is not as simple as that. The poster that showed how it was not profitable enough for Target to bother with the blind shopper missed the point.

In the 1960s, black people made a great deal less money than whites. It was not very profitable to have a black in your business, from a retail point of view, because they would not have enough money to spend anyway. So why go to the trouble of inviting them, or even allowing them access.

And besides, there were stores that catered to the black trade anyway, so they could shop there. And if they just had to shop at a white only store, they could just as easy go to the back door and place their order there without disrupting business for the white folks. (Basically, that is what you people are saying with the "use a telephone" idea.)

In that era, and to some degree even today, in a very real sense of the word being a person of color was a handicap. Does that mean that businesses should have the right to sell only to those they chose to? And they themselves should get to decide what standards need to be met and what does not? Hello 1949!

It may on the surface seem to be one of those lawsuits that are a waste of time, but if you think it through, there is merit in the case. As a civilized society we cannot allow a lack of compassion to become the standard, nor can we allow public actions which are excusionary in their concept. The minute we start down that road, we are turning back the clock, not moving forward.

lol I have to say this, and i dont mean to affend if thats the case but those who sue....and i'm talking mainly america are just plain dumb.
I have heard so many cases of people sueing for stupid things that just comes down to plain common sense!
I dont mean to dig at America but you are the biggest source of this and dont get me wrong i live in england and we are simply being sucked in aswell...it really is sad to see whats becoming of our race!

As for the blind isnt the internet and computers in general visual!?!? it sucks that they cant see but what do they expect a monitor with brail?
Doesn't suprise me really as its so frequent now its on every advert..."fell at work, want to sue and get money"

"ACCIDENTS HAPPEN AND THATS LIFE" everything cant suit everyone...truly pathetic!

Originally posted by Edn


You wouldn't let a car manufacturer's cut corners and not follow the guide lines, the internet is no different.

yeah, there is NO difference between car manufacturers and a retailers website...
please, people are just looking for a reason to complain.

it is called 'disability' for a reason.....that means you are not able to do the things others can so...
sucks but that is life.


i don't beleive that people/places should have to bend over backwards...
standards like parking and wheel shair accessable entrances are one thing....
just seems silly to me....

The arrival of the internet was seen as a big improvement for the blind people. For the first time they had access to information that they could use in an autonomous way.
Screen readers and braille rulers allow them to use the computer as anyone else.
Not being able to see the pictures is not a big concern, nice website can give an explanation of the picture in the alt attribute. But as most of the information is text, they are able to read it.
Guidelines like the WAI (www.w3c.org) can be used to make pages more accessible and this is not really difficult.

So, what does it cost to be nice with other people?

Originally posted by RogerT
As for the comment about 'denying' access by not 'providing' access, where does that twisted logic come from? If someone is too damn fat to fit through my door, does that mean I am denying them access to my shop?

If someone is too fat that is usually their choice. Typically, the blind did not choose to be blind.

Yes, if you open your business doors to the general public, you must make it accessible to all potential customers (within reason of course... if Joe Big Mac 900pounder can't fit his fork lift through, that's his problem). Refusal to do so once a conflict has been brought to your attention qualifies as discrimination.

If you are open to the public, your door can not be so narrow that only the anorexic can fit through.

However that is not the situation we are presently discussing. Target has already provided a means for the blind to access their products. Being able to shop on their website is a luxury service they offer. It is not an integral part of their retail operation and should not be subject to any form of mandatory disability compliance.

As the Internet evolves, I suspect that condition will change and mega-chain websites will qualify as vital components of their retail businesses. In such a situation where it can be shown that the website is a primary source of revenue for the retailer, then yes it must then be made accessible to all potential customers.

I agree Boondock that sad thing is that alot of people with diabilities feel they should be treated with more attention then those without....like you said its unfortunate but its life!!

the problem is that everyone these days wants things done for them and if people arnt willing to do things for them then....lets think what can i do?? SUE!!!! simple.

its not just with disabilities though its everything! any excuse to get what people want...and because the goverment are so hell bent on making everyone happy (or so it would seem) that they cant see the affect its having on everyone look at political correctness for instance! big issue that really drives me insane! I mean when did it become insulting/racist to someone to call a black board a black board or white board...its now a presentation board!

sorry going of the suject, my bad