US company sued over accessibility (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility



Message

Tailslide -> US company sued over accessibility (2/9/2006 12:16:31)

This will be interesting to follow:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/08/MNGO7H4VBP128.DTL



womble -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/9/2006 14:26:35)

It'll be interesting to see what their response is. No doubt some corporate BS about it not being financially viable to make it accessible, much hand-wringing and bleating about how ever so sorry they are 'cos they got caught, and they won't do it again.

1176 accessibility warnings at Priority 1 according to HTML Tidy on the home page alone.

Interesting link though at the bottom of the page (in teeny-tiny writing) about diversity...

quote:

Diversity is individuality. It includes a wide spectrum of traits like personal style, age, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language, physical ability, religion...

(my bolding btw).
Blind customers can't read that of course because it's an image with no alt attribute or longdesc...

quote:

Our ultimate goal is to ensure that our commitment to diversity is integrated into every level of our operations because it is good for our business—and because it is the right thing to do.

So a company who's committed to diversity, enough to put info about it on there site - yet they've never heard of accessible web sites...?



golfer -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/9/2006 15:07:35)

Seems to me that there will be a lot of web redesigns floating around for our US friends in the near future.

It won't belong before it hits the UK shores.



caz -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/9/2006 15:20:25)

Well, reading the article it seems that Wells Fargo has made the effort and they surely do as much business as Target on line. Many companies pay lip service to the sentiment of inclusivity, but often that's all it is. [&:]

It will be interesting to follow this saga.



Nicole -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/9/2006 16:24:02)

I think they'll get a slap on the wrist and told to get an accessible website online within a certain time frame.

I know we're reading this from a newspaper site and we're not privy to all the details, but the 2 things that instantly strike me are that this group "chose" Target because they're a large organisation (no legal expert of course, but how will "choosing" a victim go down in court?)

and that through reading this article, it's a discrimination issue and not one where somebody has suffered any physical or material loss or damage through this website. What are US discrimination laws like? What's the maximum penalty? I know Australian laws are pretty pathetic on discrimination cases.

Disclaimer: You know who's side I'm on! Don't get me wrong on this please.

Nicole



dpf -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/9/2006 21:44:51)

quote:

this group "chose" Target because they're a large organisation (no legal expert of course, but how will "choosing" a victim go down in court?)
"choosing" isnt a problem in civil litigation.....in criminal matters, the authoririties have to be wary of choosing who to prosecute- "selective prosecution" = "why indict me and not them?" but not an issue in civili litigation.



mar0364 -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/10/2006 6:25:18)

You've been watching Court TV haven't you? LOL



dpf -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/10/2006 12:30:06)

i love court tv..lol..but after working 11 years in prosecutors office and all my drinking buddies (not at the Leon Pub) are/were lawyers..lol



Tailslide -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/10/2006 12:42:39)

Has your choice in drinking buddies improved at all? [8|]



Tailslide -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/10/2006 13:17:27)

I haven't seen this before - thought it was interesting. It dates from 2004:

http://news.com.com/Travel+sites+agree+to+changes+for+the+blind/2100-1038_3-5318568.html



rdouglass -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/10/2006 15:46:48)

My only thought on this:

Target will win this lawsuit but not because they are big and will obviously pull out their best lawyers but because they have a "brick and mortar" presence that is already accessible to handicapped individuals. Their arguement will be that challenged people already have access.

However, if the Internet was their only storefront, I suspect they'd have to worry a little.

Besides, people are tired of lawsuits. This one may have merit but there seems to be a big loophole here for Target IMO.



mar0364 -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/11/2006 19:06:33)

Leon Pub. It's a little upscale but the beer is good.



dpf -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/12/2006 10:50:44)

quote:

the beer is good.
..so many beers - so little time.



spitfire -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/14/2006 6:49:59)

Pardon me for reverting to topic :cough:

Bruce Lawson and Patrick, where were you back in the summer?
and some other classic snips from the Sitepoint thread, typos left in:

How is an ATL-text going to be usfull so someone that cant see it?
I'm not sure how a web site would be covered here. It's not a public place to which blind people are prevented from going.
... stop all the bleeding heart crap. No one here is marching the blind off to gas chambers.
how is he meant to go on the internet anyway if hes blind. How does he see the links e.t.c
Without vision, your always going to have trouble reading an online site no matter how good a site is or how good your screenreader is.

Ah well, ignorance is bliss.



ellipisces -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 4:44:31)

quote:

How is an ATL-text going to be usfull so someone that cant see it?
The blind person can use a device called a Screen reader, that will speak every word in the Page to them via the computer speakers. Blind people get very adept at using this, filtering out all of the garbage on a web page. They can navigate using the tab key and use the Internet just like all of the rest of us. The ALT text is read to them as the web page renders.

The US laws are very "hard coded", with very little room for exception. If you have web pages that are accessible to the public, THEY DO NEED TO BE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE, and you can be liable to a lawsuit if they are not.



spitfire -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 9:11:07)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ellipisces

quote:

How is an ATL-text going to be usfull so someone that cant see it?
The blind person can use a device called a Screen reader, that will speak every word in the Page to them via the computer speakers. Blind people get very adept at using this, filtering out all of the garbage on a web page. They can navigate using the tab key and use the Internet just like all of the rest of us. The ALT text is read to them as the web page renders.

The US laws are very "hard coded", with very little room for exception. If you have web pages that are accessible to the public, THEY DO NEED TO BE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE, and you can be liable to a lawsuit if they are not.

Thank you for that ellipisces, but I think you have read that out of context and missed the irony of those (ignorance is bliss) comments.[;)]



dpf -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 15:21:04)

quote:

The US laws are very "hard coded", with very little room for exception. If you have web pages that are accessible to the public, THEY DO NEED TO BE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE, and you can be liable to a lawsuit if they are not.
i dont think that is true - only web sites for federal programs or federally funded are covered under "508"



dpf -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 15:21:05)

quote:

The US laws are very "hard coded", with very little room for exception. If you have web pages that are accessible to the public, THEY DO NEED TO BE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE, and you can be liable to a lawsuit if they are not.
i dont think that is true - only web sites for federal programs or federally funded are covered under "508"



spitfire -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 15:23:17)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dpf

quote:

The US laws are very "hard coded", with very little room for exception. If you have web pages that are accessible to the public, THEY DO NEED TO BE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE, and you can be liable to a lawsuit if they are not.
i dont think that is true - only web sites for federal programs or federally funded are covered under "508"

Agree[:D]



spitfire -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 15:23:52)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dpf

quote:

The US laws are very "hard coded", with very little room for exception. If you have web pages that are accessible to the public, THEY DO NEED TO BE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE, and you can be liable to a lawsuit if they are not.
i dont think that is true - only web sites for federal programs or federally funded are covered under "508"

and again[:)]



Tailslide -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 15:27:50)

I can't quite remember the full details but I think I saw the other day that most web/accessibility cases brought against businesses rather than US Govt. and subsections thereof were actually brought with reference to a competely different act - the US version of the Disability Discrimination Act (can't actually remember it's name) which wasn't specifically aimed at websites (think it was from the early 90s) but they could be brought under it's general umbrella.



spitfire -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 15:58:45)

That could have been the Americans with Disabilities Act of around 1990, with several more recent revisions, perhaps ?
quote:

Explaining the grounds for the NFB suit, Mazen M. Basrawi, Equal Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates, notes that Target’s actions are in violation of California law (California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act), which in turn incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).



Tailslide -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/19/2006 16:07:31)

That's the one!



dpf -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/20/2006 9:43:26)

I agree...

and..

I agree [:D]



jaybee -> RE: US company sued over accessibility (2/21/2006 9:57:49)

So do I.

What are we talking about? [:D]

I'll catch up. Promise I will. [8D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375