|
| |
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 6036
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: online
 |
More on the Target case - 9/8/2006 2:56:52
From Yahoo:
quote:
A federal district court judge ruled yesterday that a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind.
and
quote:
Explaining the ramification of the ruling, Mazen M. Basrawi, Equal Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates, noted that: "the court clarified that the law requires that any place of public accommodation is required to ensure that it does not discriminate when it uses the internet as a means to enhance the services it offers at a physical location."
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060907/cgth051.html?.v=55
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
|
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4086
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: England (but live in Finland now)
Status: offline
|
RE: More on the Target case - 9/8/2006 3:00:18
so what if there is no physical location?
_____________________________
David Prescott
Gekko web design
| |
|
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 6036
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: online
|
RE: More on the Target case - 9/8/2006 3:06:14
I think that one of the arguments from Target is that their stores were accessible and so their website didn't have to be - if you see what I mean.
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
| |
|
|
|
d a v e
Posts: 4086
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: England (but live in Finland now)
Status: offline
|
RE: More on the Target case - 9/8/2006 4:45:55
yeah but you know how those crazy yanks like to sue - it's their favourite sport after baseball/football :)
(am i going to get sued by all the Americans on this forum now for deformation of character os something?"!)
_____________________________
David Prescott
Gekko web design
| |
|
|
|
Nicole
Posts: 2830
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Nambucca / Kempsey, Australia
Status: offline
|
RE: More on the Target case - 9/8/2006 6:08:15
I’m not trying to play “devil’s advocate” or anything, you all know my stance on web accessibility, but I still fail to see how a web designer can’t be sued for negligence or whatever if they haven’t undertaken to make a site follow current web standards and be accessible.
I mean, a company that should and did know better like Target probably went about finding a web designer for their site much like anyone else goes about employing anyone to do anything. There are many things I know nothing about and therefore trust the mechanic / engineer / tradesperson or whatever, I know it’s my responsibility to check their qualifications and make sure I’m happy with them to do a particular job, but not knowing the standards of these things I don’t know, how can I ask about them? I mean does anyone honestly ever ask a tradesperson what standards they follow and then go and check whether those standards are accepted best practice?
So I still struggle to accept that a designer can’t be held to blame, unless a client has specifically asked that a site not be made accessible, and then I also believe that designer should refuse to do the work. A business who legitimately wants and needs a website should just expect that the designer is going to follow current standards and the laws that govern their industry wherever they may live. I firmly believe it’s the designers responsibility to understand they have a responsibility to produce websites in accordance of the laws where we or the client lives/works. We all know about privacy laws don’t we? Most designers will advise clients on different aspects of possible breaches of privacy and suggest privacy policies be written on websites won’t they? So why is this different from accessibility?
My other question is about other forms of advertising and why most television commercials are completely inaccessible to those with disabilities, some even being absent of any sound in order for the viewer to look up if they’re not already. Some include screen flickering which I’m sure induces some to fits. Are there any precedents against television advertisements?
Nicole
Edit: In fact this reminds me, having moved to the country where TV and radio is just naturally far more amateurish than in the city, it's nice though don't get me wrong, I was watching television just after I got here and saw my first tv commercial that was cross-screen incompatable. Very amateur advert that either the client or the producer obviously wanted to stretch the full width of a wide screen tv. On my ordinary size television it cut the sides of all the words, phone number etc. Beautiful!
< Message edited by Nicole -- 9/8/2006 6:23:23 >
_____________________________
| |
|
|
|
Mango Himself
Posts: 1727
Joined: 11/28/2005
Status: offline
|
RE: More on the Target case - 9/8/2006 12:43:51
quote:
ORIGINAL: d a v e
yeah but you know how those crazy yanks like to sue - it's their favourite sport after baseball/football :)
(am i going to get sued by all the Americans on this forum now for deformation of character os something?"!)
funny you should mention that!
I have news for you: Target and the US have just retained my services as their legal representative. You now owe $35 to each american ($10 to illegal aliens only) for defamation.
Some members of this forum have already felt what it's like to go against the powers that be. You may read this this posting just to get an idea!
Nicole, we are not going to charge you! With a name like that and being CCC, how can we?
_____________________________
Associate Smutter
_____________________
You're Just Jealous Because The Voices Are Talking To Me
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
