Blind Patrons Sue For Site Inaccessibility

[Dave Zan]

http://news.com.com/2100-1030-6038123.html

Sexton, along with a blind advocacy group, filed a class action lawsuit this week against Target, alleging that the retail giant's Web site is inaccessible to the blind and thus violates a California law that incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit, filed in Northern California's Alameda County Superior Court by Sexton and the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind (NFB), claims that Target.com, "contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for blind customers to use."

For example, the suit charges that visual information is missing "alt-text," or invisible code that allows screen readers to detect and vocalize a description of an image. In addition, the site lacks accessible image maps, an impediment to jumping to different site destinations, the suit says. As a result, Sexton, who attends the University of California, Berkeley, says that while he can search the site for specific products, he's unable to associate prices with those goods.

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

That could lead to some of the retail giants making some changes !

 

[Andrew Shaw]

How can this be taken seriously. This will have the judge laughing. Their are many things blind people cant do, like drive a car for example. Because they are blind, of course they are going to be limited.

 

[Domagon]

Don't laugh ... website "accessibility" is a problem for many visitors.

And not just the blind either, but also persons with "weak" vision who need larger type, color blindness, etc.

Biggest accessibility peaves I have with many sites are:

* Buttons / links are graphics instead of text-like links; lack of "alt" tags where they are important.

* Use of fixed sized fonts that the visitor can't easily change - this is a problem for people with "weak" vision who desire larger print.

* Bad color combinations ... ie. using similar colors for foreground and background, text that is too light, use of color alone for selections without any corresponding "text" for the choices.

* Websites that are totally fixed to a screen's resolution with little to no regard to the device the visitor is using.

There already are accessibility guidelines that many government operated sites follow ... so it's only a matter of time before such guidelines are mandated for privately operated commercial sites too.

Anyways, it's smart business to make one's site as accessible as reasonably possible - especially as the population (speaking of western countries) ages and requires more accomodations.

Ron

 

[beatz]

Accessibility is one thing.

To force website owners by law to have alt tags or get sued is ridiculous.

What a crazy world.

 

[Duckinla]

The whole premise is well intentioned but ridiculous. One day the ADA supporters will make it so difficult and expensive to be in business that small companies won't even be able to enter the market. I've gone through this crap building out retail stores. Some locations had to be passed up simply because it was too expensive to make it ADA compliant (elevators, larger restrooms, etc). It will reduce competition and innovation and raise prices for everyone. They would rather see a business forced out of the market than see one exist that is unable to cater to the disabled.

 

[Domagon]

The issue is more than just a few missing "alt" tags ... much of the site is graphics that can't be logically parsed by text reading programs.

Most website accessibility problems I see are not due to financial reasons, but rather out of sheer lazyness; lack of regard for usability.

While making a physical building fully ADA accessible often adds substantial cost with usually little to no monetary return, there most often is a rapid positive monetary return for accessible websites...

Some advantages:

* Easier maintenance and more consistant updates

* Lower customer support costs - if people can easily navigate, find answers, easily buy, etc, they are less likely to contact support

* Better product presentation due to more uniform website structure

* Attracts more customers due to easier indexing in the search engines

* Retain customers longer - will browse / buy more items

* More completed sales; customers who can't cleary see / understand a site will abort their purchase; important to ensure accessibility extends to the shopping cart part too

Bottom line is, in my view, accessibility for websites is a win, win situation for everyone.

Ron

 

[young11]

tough sh!t this is so stupid if I were Target I'd laugh in their face

 

[JuniperPark]

Following the absurd logic of this lawsuit, a blind AND deaf person should own the entire world because they "should"" be able to sue EVERYONE for EVERYTHING they own.

 

[dtobias]

While I don't politically favor people being able to sue webmasters for their design decisions, I do favor using logically-structured style in site development, with valid HTML and proper ALT attributes (they're not "tags").

http://webtips.dan.info/

 

[Leading Names]

Accessibility is one thing.

To force website owners by law to have alt tags or get sued is ridiculous.

What a crazy world.

That pretty much sums up my feelings.

Is there anything in America that you don't settle with lawsuits? That's one aspect of American culture that I just can't stomach, suing each other over the most ridiculous things.

- Rob

 

[beatz]

Well i *have* to say although for years i thought the same about the lawsuit craze in the States that in general (the way it was meant to be) it actually makes sense in the U.S

The main reason why it's so easy to sue someone over something there used to be the rather poor customer protection by law/government in the U.S (you could also say in contrary to many european countries in the U.S the government/law doesn't regulate as many things in the open market as in Europe which indeed can be a good thing).

So it was meant as a way to protect customers by hoping companies would voluntarily keep an eye on the quality of their products themselves instead of government regulations simply through the fear of getting sued otherwise.

Sort of a self regulating mechanism.

The downside of that are two things:

Individuals, companies and lobbyists abusing the system by suing anybody for anything that could mean the slightest mistake.

Second, out of fear to be eventually sued, companies have to include the most silly warning statements on their products/in their contracts to protect their a**.AKA the McDonalds "Coffee can be hot" sort of statements.

Which also has led to a kind of "not my fault" mentality amongst people, meaning people feel less and less responsible for themselves but blame companies for their own mistakes instead of taking responsibility themselves.

Sort of the downfall of common sense.

Think the infamous tabacco company lawsuits (So you didn't know smoking can be dangerous and blame the cigarette companies instead ?!) or the intial example from this thread - a certain group of people thinks the world owes them all (in this case, webmasters).

I'm 100% confident a lawsuit like this would not have the slightest chance to succeed here in Europe which i'm thankful for, as it means the laws cover most everyday cases and also make sure people are "forced" to self-responsibility which is a good thing and avoids that very common sense downfall one seems to be able to witness in the states.

Admitted on the downside we have too many regulations and bureaucracy in Europe in regards of a self regulating open market but i still prefer that to the unresponsible, greedy way of a lawsuit craze.