ADA Out of Control? Blind groups sue Target over website

Having worked as a webmaster and being a recovering Person With Awful Eyesight, I can say that yes it is an issue and that most corporations who have a public face also make their website accessible to the blind. Remember that "blind" doesn't mean "everything went black and that was it." People with macular degeneration are blind, someone who has 20/1000 vision or people whose vision can't be corrected are legally blind. Many can walk around with just a stick to help them negotiate curbs and all.

Older people with cataracts fall into the near-blind category.

BOBBY compliance isn't that hard -- it basically means "no flash navigation, please make your site with good contrast between letters and backgrounds, and please add tags to your images.

Here's a test page to check your code:
webxact.watchfire.com...

Here's more about why it's so important (it also helps people who do not speak English to figure out what our websites are about):
uwnyc.org...

I was aware of the Bobby issues early in my web development career, and everything I designed was Bobby compliant. It wasn't a pain at all, and a lot of it was just good design practice. My pages were often image heavy.

BTW, a Bobby compliant website means that those who have vision problems COULD order stuff from Target online. So it's actually money in their pockets at relatively little cost.

I have a good deal of sympathy for the blind in part because my own eyesight was so bad and was never able to be corrected to 20/20. I just had LASIK, so we'll see.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Byrd]

reply to post by Edn

---

But the scenario presented was if I were blind AND deaf. How could I benefit from text to speech if I couldn't hear speech? And furthermore, a ruling in favor of the ADA would either do nothing at all to help the blind access any website. Why not? Because the blind are still forced to provide their own text to speech software. OH! Should we now sue every web site that doesn't offer a free download of text to speech?



What law? Since when?



Regardless of how compliant it supposedly is, blind people can't look at pictures. Looking at pictures is a central theme to photobucket, which is why I chose that site.



So if I make a web site selling, say, my services as a Flash Programmer (hypothetical, I am not one), I should have to attempt to describe in text form each of my examples of Flash work?



They are quite soundly (pun intended) relevant to one another, if you are talking about a music download website which a deaf person obviously could not benefit from.



Google Translator is provided by a third party. By that argument, it's perfectly acceptable to expect people to use a third party to help them use a web site. For that matter, as I said before, a text-to-speech program is provided by a third party.

At any rate, there are far more people who don't speak English than there are blind people. The issue at hand is accessability. Language barriers affect accessability far more than blindness. That's why language is relevant in this case. Accessabilitiy is impossible to provide to absolutely everybody - regardless of what standards you follow. You could comply with every rule, law, standard and courtesy on earth and still, somebody would be unable to get to your web site. Should you be sued for it?


Stupidity was my intention with my fifth point, to parody the sheer lack of common sense being shown by the ADA. So, no offense taken. :-)

As another example of stupidity, which is right about at the same level as this lawsuit: I wonder if any of my friends who cannot afford Internat access to get online with could sue Target for discriminating against them based on their wealth?

I ran www.abovetopsecret.com... through that and it looks like the blind might be after the three amigos next!

On a lighter note:

I am getting ready to apply for a grant from the government to start a school for those interested in becoming interpreters for mimes, so that the blind can be just as bored by that sillness as the rest of us. (After all, our tax dollars are spent for every other silly idea.)

Anyone want to sign up to take courses? (Job openings not garunteed at this time.)

As mentioned previously there are a number of ways for disabled people to access websites, for someone who is both blind and death they would be able to use a brail machine to read the sites.


This is the same silly type of statement you made before attempting to degrade the subject. you are forced to buy a keyboard and screen to access websites, should we sue them for not providing that? Use some common sense.


The DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) in the UK requires it. You can read here for laws that apply in your country.

You should learn more about what we are discussing, apart from the fact that the pictures there are personal pictures uploaded by users for there friends to see and not for any comercial purpose a site can have pictures and still be accessible to the blind.



No, because none of your targeted audience will be blind.


Same as above, your (deliberately?) picking examples that have no relevance to death people.


I actually am against the law suit btw, I dislike people who try to make money out of a companies mistakes, in the UK most companies have sorted out any problems in there sites after a quick letter or phone call.

This is a good page about accessibility www.digitalidiom.co.uk...

Whoa there. Just because you say something isn't relevant, does not mean that it isn't. You are not the decider of relevance. I feel that my examples were very relevant.

Ok, what if I'm blind, deaf, and have lost the feeling in my hands due to some crazy accident? As I said before, this is relevant because it's impossible to make something totally accessable.

Should we sue because we have to buy a keyboard and screen? No, we all have to buy that stuff. But we don't have to buy text to speech software - ONLY BLIND PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE THAT PURCHASE. True "accessibility" would mean a blind person could navigate a web site for the same price that anyone else could.

The link which you provided has links to web pages discussing US laws. One page specifically states:

So, while Target doesn't meet accessability guidelines, it's apparently not actually required to by the laws of the country in which this lawsuit is taking place. Of course, this doesn't mean they aren't being buttholes for not throwing in the proper text-descriptions, but buttholiness is not something you can sue someone for.

The pictures posted on photobucket ARE for a commercial purpose - not for the commerce of the posters, but for photobucket. By having all those pictures up there, they draw in visitors who click ads and generate money. But blind people can't look at the pictures. They can read the captions and upload their own pictures (presumably), but one major function of the site is off-limits to them. I'm perfectly aware of what we are discussing - when you get right down to it, we're discussing whether or not blind people can sue somebody because they can't look at images.

If I were attempting to sell my skills as a Flash Programmer, you are absolutely mistaken to think none of my target audience would be blind. Unless you actually believe there aren't any blind people out there who own businesses and want to advertise on the web?

With the music site, once again, the relevance is the issue of whether or not certain people can use a certain web site. The sad but undeniable truth is that the Internet, by its very nature, is not 100% accessable to 100% of the people in the world. Nothing is. That's why we call them "handicapped" - I'd have thought THAT much to be obvious.

And for the record, I don't need you to tell me why it's a good idea to make a web site accessible to as many people as possible. I have enough common sense to know that from the get-go. At issue here is whether or not we are required to here in the USA, so I think maybe YOU need to check the relevancy of your posts more than I.