Blind Cal student sues Target...Website cannot be used by the sightless

[LiberalGuy000]

Blind Cal student sues Target, Suit charges retailer's Web site cannot be used by the sightless

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 8, 2006

(02-08) 1215 PST OAKLAND -- A blind UC Berkeley student has filed a class-action lawsuit against Target Corp., saying the retailer is committing civil-rights violations because its Web site is inaccessible to those who cannot see.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, said the upscale discounter's on-line business, target.com, denies blind Californians equal access to goods and services available to those who can see.

"Target thus excludes the blind from full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of daily life," said the suit, which seeks to be certified as a class action and alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and various state statutes.

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

[GrumpyGreg]

1. I don't get it---why is Target's website any different than any

other retailer?

[LiberalGuy000]

3. His attorney said...

that Target's website is "one of the biggest offenders". :shrug:

[enlightenment]

5. It's not --

the article indicates that this lawsuit is "shot across the bow" -- a warning to other companies to upgrade their sites so that they are accessible.

[TheGunslinger]

2. Uhhh....are they supposed to invent a Braille monitor?

[suffragette]

6. Actually there are many text to speech programs

that will read text, but the text has to be there to be read.
It's not that hard to make sites accessible. There are guidelines and instructions out there, like at this site:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/

[IndianaGreen]

50. It is also very expensive and time consuming, and a waste of time

There has to be some common sense in the application of the law. You wouldn't think of putting a blind or physically handicap person next to the emergency exit of a passenger jet, would you?

We spent a lot of time and effort writing text to assist the blind to navigate through a series of computer screens. This is what the law required. What was never taken into consideration is that we don't have any blind users, because eyesight is a requirement of the people that have to use those screens (they are security personnel).

[Gman]

68. Indy, please see my posts

Here

and Here

and tell me what you think.

[suffragette]

98. I don't think it's a waste of time to increase access

to website content and functionality.
Why build in barriers when there are readily available tools to make their website more accessible?
And in the process, they can increase their market since peeople who would have difficulty using the site now could use it with these changes.

[loyalsister]

107. Maybe not

But they would serve them enough liquor to get bombed.
But, since they have their sight it can be presumed that their motor functions will be suddenly intact in the event of an emergency?

[trixie]

49. No, verbal messages imbedded in the website etc

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. You don't need to build in verbal messages...

... if a website is designed properly, a text reader can do the work for you, but you have to use alt text to tell the text reader what the image is.

It ain't rocket science.

[napi21]

4. So why is she just suing Target?

Doesn't her accusation apply to all web sites?

FYI, my cousin is legaly blind, and the Org for the blind supplied him with software that audibly reads most web sites. It does have problems with those that have lots of graphics, but it's a great thing for him!

Just what does this lady want?

[GrumpyGreg]

10. A "deep pockets" lawsuit IMHO.

[Kire]

22. Wal Mart wouldn't have it.

It would be squashed in a second.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. She want the sites with lots of graphics to provide alternate text

so her reader can use them. Seems reasonable to me.

[LiberalGuy000]

7. Life isn't always fair

Maybe the student should sue the California DMV as well. I mean, it's really not fair that blind people aren't allowed to drive like everyone else. B-)

[GrumpyGreg]

9. Good point. I cannot imagine how all disabilities can be

perfectly accommodated.

[sokar]

103. Not asking for perfect accomidation

just some consideration when doing their online stores

[JaneGat]

11. The web is easily made accessible to the blind

Accessible sites for the blind are set up with specific comment areas on the source page so that text readers can easily read the site. Sometimes keystrokes are added for ease of navigation. I've augmented sites for years to make them accessible, and it is a very easy and inexpensive process.

[northzax]

13. how much a page might it cost?

given the thousands of pages that constantly change on a retail website, even a penny or two a page adds up in a hurry. I would think a retail site would be especially difficult given the tradtional dependence on images over text in the structure. I really have no idea, simply wondering what sort of expense might be involved here?

[AlienGirl]

17. Not even a penny or two per page

They could use CSS and and all their changes would be applied at once when they made them. Individual images, of products or whatever, could just be alt-tagged as soon as they were put on the page.

They would have to use less Flash animation, but Flash intros and stuff just annoy heavy Internet users anyway.

Tucker

[LiberalFighter]

69. I skip intros myself.. waste of time as far as I am concerned

[JaneGat]

19. It depends on how you write the page

Accessible sites can be created on the fly by using a linked text file on the server, or page by page. When a new item is added to a retail site, a couple of comments could be added taking less than a minute --"Text starts here" "Text ends here" "Image of baby smiling at a kitten"-- things like that in the comment attribute.

I don't mean to over simplify, but the point is to keep the page clean so as not confuse the text to speech reader, and to give it directions.

I never charge extra to include accessibility into a site, and adding comments to an existing site goes very fast. Creating a separate site for the blind costs much less than a typical site.

[uncle ray]

21. they're not?

well i'll be damned.

[KittyWampus]

41. The Remedy Isn't That Complicated. It Requires Time & Money Which

large corporations have PLENTY of.

And considering how much of our tax dollars go to supporting the existance of large corporations and the destructive effect they have on small business owners and our communities, it is the very LEAST they can do.

Instruct their Web Masters to insert whatever framework make their websites compatable.

[Bassic]

85. True, but what happens to small companies.

Or local bands or newspapers or that kind of thing?

[Retrograde]

91. No, it requires thinking ahead

which is something corporations aren't generally all that good at.

I agree, though: accessibility is something that is often cheap to engineer in at the start and expensive to have to retrofit.

According to the article, it does appear the plaintiff requested reasonable accommodation and was refused.

[Zhade]

99. What a stupid analogy.

Unlike driving blind, using a website while blind does not carry the risk of killing other people while doing so.

Your analogy is absurd. (Your analogy, not saying you, so don't take it the wrong way.)

[readmoreoften]

104. Yeah. Fuck the blind.

Fuck 'em. They have it easy.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Web people! Is this such a terrible offense?

Just because graphics don't have alt-text, is that such a crime?

[targetpractice]

12. It's sorta like supporting multiple browsers or operating systems...

It's straightforward to support IE, Firefox, Safari, etc. However, some web designers are lazy or for whatever reason choose not to follow W3C standards. The results are sites that don't work on Macs or sites that only work with IE. The lazy web programmer's argument is: "Hey, 95% of the users are using IE, therefore we support the majority of users." But, it is just as easy to program for multiple platforms if your web programmers know what they are doing.

Likewise, the technical issues and standard practices have been worked out to make sites accessible to those require text-to-speech assistance. It probably takes a lawsuit like this to make companies understand that programming to W3C standards should be a standard practice -- if your web folks protest, then find new ones.

BTW, I'm not a web programmer... I just manage them.

[suffragette]

14. "should be a standard practice"

And you're right, it probably will take a lawsuit to get there. It's all about access.
It's doubly foolish of target not to do this. One, because it's the right thing to do, but also because they would increase the ease for some consumers to purchase from them.

[Canuckistanian]

16. Thanks! That's what I thought.

I know it's confusing for Web authors these days, but encoding a few words in a graphic seems trivial.

Seems to me that Target (and others) should take a good review of their public relation policies.

People depend on their decisions, more than they realize.

[Solo_in_MD]

23. It much more work than just that

and on large template driven sites, very very hard to do well. There is also no standards for web accessiblity that are adequately quantified. No equivalent to the UFAS for facilities. In short the lawsuit is BS.

Federal IT regs require that Federal sites are required to be accessilble but that is about it from a legal perspective.

[KamaAina]

95. It's fairly easy to test a website for accessibility with Bobby

http://www.watchfire.com/products/desktop/accessibilitytesting/default.aspx

Watchfire® Bobby™ 5.0 is a web accessibility desktop testing tool designed to help expose barriers to accessibility and encourage compliance with existing accessibility guidelines, including Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act and the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Bobby spiders through a website and tests on a page-by-page basis to see if it meets several accessibility requirements, including readability by screen readers, the provision of text equivalents for all images, animated elements, audio and video displays. Bobby can see local web pages, as well as web pages behind your firewall. It performs over 90 accessibility checks. During a scan, Bobby checks HTML against select accessibility guidelines and then reports on the accessibility of each web page.

There's even a free service, now called WebXACT, that checks one page at a time:

http://webxact.watchfire.com/

but of course Target contributes to repukes so their web designer shouldn't have to spend three hundred whole bucks on a quality control tool that could help draw millions of users with visual impairments to their site. :sarcasm:

[Solo_in_MD]

25. Please cite the codifed standards for text-to-speech

RFC or better? W3C are not even close to that mature in this area

[NashVegas]

42. What About Flash?

I program a Cold Fusion-based site which, for the most part, offers no challenges for text-to-speech. At least one of my applications is going to move to being Flash-based for security reasons. So where does that leave me?

[Gman]

57. Flash leaves the text to speech software with no way

to read the information. The best the text to speech would do is read the CLSID information which is triply annoying (left bracket, 1,0,3,4,4,...(14 or so digits), right bracket)

[DS1]

60. Flash is good when used in the right settings

For example, a photographer who doesn't want his entire site ripped easily could program for flash, and what's the point of making photographs blind-accessible on the web?

[Gman]

65. There is no point in making photos accessible for the blind

It doesn't matter for the low vision as they can either see the photographer's photo or they can't. The point is .gif or .jpg graphics such as the menu bar at the Target website.

[DS1]

67. Yes, that's what I was getting at

CSS now offers quick access options for links A) for this B) for that which should make it easier for people who have no use for mice to use

'accesskey' in hrefs

see

www.csszengarden.com

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. If users are blind, it leaves you out of compliance with the law. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

70. It is strongly recommended to use alt-text even for sighted people...

because not everyone has high speed internet. While the graphics are loading the text is displayed to show what it supposed to be there. Even high speed internet doesn't load fast enough when the graphics are very intensive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. A retail business has to install wheelchair-friendly entrances.

It doesn't seem like such a hardship to design their websites for accessibility.

ten tips for accessible websites

A lawsuit is the only mechanism by which a private party can get others to obey the law. It's not frivolous.

[NVMojo]

15. another reason why good lawsuits get screwed ...frivolous bullshit

why don't the deaf sue Sirius radio?

[AlienGirl]

18. This isn't frivolous

Text-to-speech software has been around for a long time, and there's no reason not to support audio browsers.

Tucker

[appolonios of tyana]

20. Yes, & I have Technophobia....

I have an acute case of Technophobia...It's killing me just writing this on this wretched devil machine! Dark Sided! So I feel it's only fair that they take snapshots of the web pages on daily basis and mail them to me since I have a great fear of computers and anything that has to do with modern technology. I should also have the right to take advantage of a sale even if it is over with since I have to wait for them to mail me the printed webpages. After all, It's only fair!

I also have very sensitive hearing and sometimes the incandescent lighting gives off an irritating hum that can drive you up the wall. I feel this inhibits an enjoyable & pleasant shopping experience and will request that the lights be shut down whilst I shop, and only natural lighting be used. If these simple demands are not met I will be forced to sue the living be-jeezus out of Target for not conforming to my needs as a disabled person with rights. I will not be overlooked!

/SARCASM

Excuse in advance for grammatical errors.

[Robb]

37. Aren't we clever

Sure you're not Appolonios of Perga? :eyes:

[appolonios of tyana]

55. Yes...

A mathematician I am not...Although, I can understand the confusion. Appolonios also spelled Appolonius is quite a common name.

BTW....whats this all about? :eyes:

[donheld]

132. Welcome to DU appolonios of tyana

:hi:

[Solo_in_MD]

24. Yes it is

- There are no industry technical standards in this area
- There is no recognized HSI standard for this
- There is no testable equivalent to the UFAS
- There is a jumble of incompatible tools

And someone wants to make a tort out of it? Come on. What is the next step, suing ICANN?

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. There are a broad set of guidelines and standards available

http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php

W3C is the leader in establishing standards for web pages for accessibility. A web designer who ignores those conventions is also ignoring the law. They do it at their peril.

Would strict adherence to the W3C guidelines guarantee a user-friendly experience for text-reader users? No, but that's largely due to the limitations with text readers, at least the web designer will have done their part.

[Nihil]

26. It isn't difficult to cure but it *is* a frivolous lawsuit.

I agree it is quite easy to build this support in when creating
a web site but the idea of sueing a big pocket store who hasn't
done so is pure greed.

If I go to a web site that is badly written and navigation is hard
work, I ditch that company and go to a more competent competitor.
I don't go and try to bully them into giving me an out of court
"shut up" bribe.

This is just trivialising genuine lawsuits and will simply help
the administration with their tort reform goals.

[drm604]

36. Are we really so sure that this is greed?

I don't see anything in that article which says that the suit is asking for monetary compensation. I get the impression that the suit is simply asking for the website to be made accessible. We shouldn't be throwing around words like "greed" when we don't even know if he's asking for money.

On Edit: The plaintif is a he not a she.

[Nihil]

40. OK

> We shouldn't be throwing around words like "greed" when we don't
> even know if he's asking for money.

Good point. I can't recall hearing recently about civil lawsuits
that have not involved financial compensation but I shouldn't have
ruled it out. Apologies for using too wide a brush.

[drm604]

54. Actually, now that I think about it

unless he's paying the lawyers upfront rather than on a contingency basis (or unless the lawyers are doing this pro-bono) then he must be asking for money so that the lawyers can get their cut if he wins. So there may be money involved.

[smirkymonkey]

87. Ummm... he is suing because he can't SHOP on-line.

I'm sorry, I could see it if he was prevented from doing something that actually mattered, but I just don't considered Web shopping a basic, unalienable right.

[Zhade]

100. What if that were the only way he could get, say, prescription meds?

Not necessarily at Target, but if there were no websites he could order from to have meds mailed to him, and he's a shut-in, he should just suffer?

Hypothetical, of course, but worth considering.

[Omphaloskepsis]

114. I would say they should use the method they used before..

getting on the internet. What about the folks that are to poor for a computer?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

88. Not being snarky at all here...

But how do the blind know where their mouse is pointing on the screen?

I can understand the whole text reading program thing, but say you wanted to move to a different screen -- how is that facilitated for the blind?

(I'm a little curious, and you seem knowledgable on the subject)

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. You use keyboard commands

On normal browsers, you can use the 'tab' key to move between the different objects you can click on, and hit the enter key to select them. Browsers for the blind have, I think, extra keybaord commands to help navigate around the screen.

[rd_kent]

122. Ahhh, but it is frivolous!

The blind guy should be responsible for having anything he wants to download turned into audio or another format he can use. If this guy has his way, ALL websites, including DU would be required to support blind. Then what?

[InsultComicDog]

136. Target will win this suit

as long as they make "reasonable acommodations"... such as the ability for one to shop by phone... for the blind customer.

[Gman]

46. Read my post

Here

[LisaL]

27. I feel for the blind. But what's next? Are they going to sue the art

museums because they can not enjoy the arts? I mean, some disabilities are such that it's very difficult to do certain things.

[iverglas]

63. Art museums? Glad you asked!

From the website of the National Gallery of Canada (interestingly, it uses those pop-up menus mentioned in other posts here about the tecnical aspects of accessible websites; hmm):

http://national.gallery.ca/english/default_50.htm

Special Needs

Adapted Programs and Services

The building is wheelchair accessible. Tours are available for visually or hearing impaired visitors, and there are workshops for intellectually disabled visitors. A maximum of five participants is permitted for each of the activities described below.

Description

Information in adapted formats is available for some temporary exhibitions. Please check first by contacting us at the numbers below.

The workshops and tours are open to unaccompanied adults and groups of all ages of people with physical or developmental impairments, multiple disabilities or a mental illness. Workshops and tours are also offered to those with hearing or visual impairments.

Services

All galleries and facilities are wheelchair accessible.

Wheelchairs are available at no cost from the information desk in the Tour Group Lobby. No reservation is required.

The Auditorium and Lecture Hall have a wireless amplification system. Sign language and oral interpreters can also be made available by arrangement. Please contact us at the numbers below.

These programs are offered at no cost in both official languages during the Gallery’s regular visiting hours.

By the way, the Gallery website, like all government websites and all major commercial websites in Canada, is presented in both English and French versions.

Accommodation just isn't that difficult, and just is the right thing to do, in a whole lot of ways.

"some disabilities are such that it's very difficult to do certain things" -- and it's actually impossible to do some of them. People with disabilities don't really expect miracles; they do expect not to be excluded where inclusion is reasonably possible. Disagreement over what is "reasonable", between informed people speaking in good faith, will always exist. Information and good faith are the crucial ingredients to reaching a resolution.

[BoneDaddy]

29. WTF

You know in a perfect freaking world every person of every nuance would have every accomodation. The world ain't perfect and people are not entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want.

[sokar]

30. WTF

A retail store's web site is no different than a "brick and mortar" store to the visually impaired. Computers and the Internet are vital tools for the these people. Cutting off access to sites is no different than not allowing someone with a wheelchair into the local Target.
The visually impaired is the largest single group of disabled in this country and most i know including me are very politically active. Many of the comments i have seen in this thread portray a very un-progressive view of the disabled

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. I agree - it's strange to see some people here care so little

It might be one thing to say "it's a complex situation", or "the suit may fail, because there are specific laws on this", but to dismiss it as "bullshit" is the kind of thing that belongs on a right wing site, not Democratic Underground.

And to those who say "well, you can't expect the blind to use the Web" - blind people can't just hop in their car and drive off to Target - they'd need family, friends or taxis (or public transport if they're incredibly lucky). The Web offers a excellent way of them getting greater independence - if the designers just put a little thought into it, and set themselves a few guidelines.

[Nihil]

34. Hardly

Whilst I don't agree with a blank "bullshit" response, it is neither a
complex nor intellectually challenging issue.

If a store is badly run (items on the wrong shelves, not the things I want,
poor service, whatever) then I don't use it - I find an alternative.
I don't immediately throw a law suit at them!

I have worked alongside a blind support engineer so I do understand the
technologies available and the capability of getting around their visual
difficulties. As has been mentioned many times, the solution is quite
easy to build into a site but, if the company don't want to invest even
that little bit of effort, bringing a court challenge to them really
isn't the way to go ... *unless* you are after the consolation prize
rather than any noble humanitarian sentiment.

Of course I expect the blind to use the web - my only concern is that
I would hold them to the same standard as anyone else: apply common sense.

[iverglas]

64. hmm

If a store is badly run (items on the wrong shelves, not the things I want, poor service, whatever) then I don't use it - I find an alternative. I don't immediately throw a law suit at them!

If you are black and the store prohibits black people from entering, you go find another store!

If you are gay and the property owner refuses to rent to same-sex couples, go find another landlord!

If you are a woman and the employer refuses to hire women, go find another job!

Yes, that's what a "liberal" would say. Damn those whining minorities and their constant nattering about rights.

[Zhade]

101. Indeed!

NT!

[Nihil]

119. Suggest you learn to read before trying to be snarky

"If a store is badly run (items on the wrong shelves, not the things I want,
poor service, whatever)" does not equate to "... prohibits ...",
"... refuses ..." or "... refuses ...".

If English is not your first language then I can understand the mistake
but otherwise you can stick your less than subtle slurs up your arse.

[iverglas]

121. slurs?

If English is not your first language then I can understand the mistake but otherwise you can stick your less than subtle slurs up your arse.

If you're having difficulty understanding what a slur is, you just need to read what you wrote. (English is my first language; French is my second; Latin was my third, then came German, a smattering of ancient Greek, Russian, Spanish and Farsi. If you wanted to communicate in something other than English, I'd request that you pick French or Spanish.)

"If a store is badly run (items on the wrong shelves, not the things I want, poor service, whatever)" does not equate to "... prohibits ...", "... refuses ..." or "... refuses ...".

And now perhaps you will understand my point regarding your analogy:

"If a store is badly run ..."

does not equate to

"If I am unable to access a store's facilities as a result of a disability that the store could accommodate but chooses not to"

.

If you would care to point out the "slur" in that, I'll have learned something new.

Then we could move on to my point, which was that placing the onus on the individual who is unable to access one provider's services -- for whatever reason -- often means that the individual will simply be unable to access any services. There is also not always a choice, if no provider is willing to provide the services on accessible terms. And what choice there is may not be equivalent: people of colour may not wish to live on the wrong side of the tracks, and people with disabilities may not wish to pay high prices for consumer goods.

A service provider that does not offer services on terms that are accessible to all would-be customers is not necessarily doing anything illegal or immoral, under our present standards. A Jaguar dealership is not required to offer its goods on economic terms that I can meet; this would place an intolerable onus on the dealership.

Some landlords believe that non-discrimination laws requiring them to rent to same-sex couples, thereby losing business from desirable customers who do not wish to share a building with same-sex couples, place an intolerable onus on them. Ditto lunch counter owners who can reasonably argue that they will lose business by serving people of colour. We have simply decided that such onuses are justifiable.

Many of us believe that the onus of "reasonable accommodation" for people with disabilities, to enable them to access services (or employment) on the same economic terms as the rest of us, is also justifiable.

As I've said, disagreement as to what is "reasonable" is always possible among honest people speaking in good faith. Opinions can vary without either side being accused of dishonesty or bad faith, and of course they can also be expressed honestly and in good faith but arise from ignorance.

Pretending that your distaste for the state of the aisles in a retail store is equivalent to someone else's inability to get into the store is not, in my humble opinion, even an opinion that gets in the door. But then, hey, that too is a matter of opinion.


(edited to insert omitted word)
(and again to fix incoherent sentence)

[Nihil]

128. Hey congratulations! You've learned something new!

> If you would care to point out the "slur" in that, I'll have learned
> something new.

>> Yes, that's what a "liberal" would say. Damn those whining minorities
>> and their constant nattering about rights.

QED.

With regard to languages, I was just cutting you some slack in case English
wasn't your first language. As it is ...

(FWIW, swap German with Latin and substitute Norwegian & Arabic for Russian
& Farsi and I'll keep up with you. So what? It doesn't alter the fact that
you fail to correctly comprehend English and desperately try to widen the
subject of conversation whenever you are struggling with the truth.)

> Pretending that your distaste for the state of the aisles in a retail store
> is equivalent to someone else's inability to get into the store ...

Yet again the old strawman about "state of the aisles". This was explained
in simple terms but has either eluded you or has triggered your defence
mechanism of "repeat the same 'untruth' and hope that no-one notices".

Ignoring your tangent about Jaguar dealerships, etc., and addressing ...
> ... my point, which was that placing the onus on the individual who is
> unable to access one provider's services -- for whatever reason -- often
> means that the individual will simply be unable to access any services.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the lack of a readable "Target"
website is preventing a blind or partially-sighted person from finding
*ANY* web store? If so then the conversation ends here as you are so far
off this planet that I have no chance to contact you. Have you any idea
how many online stores there are on the net? If so, take 1 away from that
number and that's the number left for the individual to access in the
event that Target's is unusable.

[NashVegas]

51. Backlash

Some of the posts we see in this thread exemplify an attitude that I've increasingly seen over the last few years.

I'm sympathetic to both sides.

In an ideal world, the physically-impaired would have equal access to everything that us more fortunate ones get to do. It would suck to not be able to have full mobility and use of the faculties most of us were blessed with at birth.

But even we able-bodied have our limitations to get around when it comes to creating full access for all. It takes money, it takes technical skills and knowledge, time, and it takes willingness. As a web programmer, when I see someone demanding these changes, it tends to send willingness out the window. Would you be surprised if a whole lot of people felt that same way?

For some websites, security is a REAL issue that may make things difficult for use of "alt" tags. Take those sites like Ticketmaster and others that use graphics to defeat robots. ...

Here in the US, we've come leaps and bounds in the accessibility department in the last twenty years. We have made truly amazing progress to the point where younger people, both the abled and disabled, may be unaware of just how difficult it was before the act of government to 'make it so.' I discovered this last spring when I visited London and saw that almost 1/2 of the tube stations I used were without escalators, elevators, or ramps. I saw a 70 year-old woman coming down the stairs of Victoria station with a walker, while I was feeling sorry for myself for having to deal with luggage on those same stairs.

[Nihil]

32. Using your own analogy ...

> A retail store's web site is no different than a "brick and mortar"
> store to the visually impaired.

... so if a blind person can't read the label on the box of a product
in a bricks & mortar store they can sue the owner?

Like I said earlier, a frivolous suit whose only gain would be an
out of court "gagging" bribe and a raising of the bar in the tort
reform agenda.

(PS: Welcome aboard! :hi: )

[sokar]

35. That depends.

Many Stores offer "personal shoppers" for the visually impaired. That read labels for customers say what you will but Wal-mart does this nicely for me. Retail stores are required to offer "reasonable accommodations" for people with disabilities.

This suit will end up being a ADA issue truest me and the main question will be if stores will be required to offer the same type of accessibility to their websits that they do for their physical stores.

[Gman]

58. You completely miss the point here

because you are so focussed on who might make some money in a settlement.

Here's the issue: The retailer has absolutely no control over how a supplier packages their product, whether it is easy to read the packaging or even use the product. (I think if someone sues a supplier because the print on their package is too small, that's a frivilous lawsuit, although some of the more radical advocates may disagree with me.) Bad packaging also means a product likely will not sell and that problem will take care of itself anyway.

However, the retailer does have control over how people get into and out of the brick and mortar building, what products are on what aisles, how they get to the checkout and even how they checkout (self checkout or use a clerk). The brick and mortar retailer by law has to have wheelchair ramps and aisles, doors and even bathroom stalls wide enough to accomodate the wheelchairs.

Identically, the retailer has no control again over the packaging of products from the same suppliers of the same products sold online. But ecommerce website retailers do have control over how people are able to access the retail website and whether they are able to use it. Without low vision/blind accessibility, while the wheelchair bound with good eyesight are able to shop a lot easier, another class of disabled people now have barriers to this new and supposedly easier way of shopping.

This issue is very ripe for a lawsuit. I think that but for Alito, if it gets that far, this guy would prevail.

[Hosnon]

72. No different? Seriously? How about the fact that there is no brick or

mortar?

Say there is an imaginary service that is by definition dependent upon the reception of light by the eyes...what then?

Why not sue restaurants when people have lost taste?

[donheld]

133. Welcome to DU sokar

:hi:

[sendero]

33. In other news...

... a blind man sues the California Department of Transportation because the roads cannot be navigated by the blind.

Shit like this is pathetic, and gives fodder for those who wish to force businesses to make REASONABLE accommadations for the disabled.

[iverglas]

66. so then

... a blind man sues the California Department of Transportation because the roads cannot be navigated by the blind.

How do you feel about those beeping crosswalk indicators that enable people with visual impairments to know when it's their turn to cross the street?

Years ago, we might have put up a sign saying "blind people crossing", to try to reduce their risk of getting run over, by alerting drivers to their presence and hoping the drivers would take care.

These days, we have simple, inexpensive technology that lets such people use the streets at much less risk and with considerably less dependence on the goodwill and intelligence of strangers. Bad idea?

I'm not suing anybody because I can't flap my arms and fly, and I don't expect to find a blind person suing anybody because s/he can't see. There are some things that can't be done -- at least at present -- if one cannot see, and driving is one of them. There are other things that CAN be done if one cannot see, if assistance is provided.

If you or any of your colleagues here have any actual argument to present to show why assistance should NOT be provided in any particular case, it would sure be nice to hear it.

[sendero]

82. The problem is..

... you couldn't tell a reasonable accomodation, such as the one in your example, from an unreasonable one if it jumped behind you and said "boo".

For those who have some sight there are browsers, like the Opera browser I use, that will easily let you zoom up. For those who are completely blind, excuse me if I don't think making every web site have audio, a monumentally expensive proposition, is a reasonable accomodation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Have you read this thread at all?

They're not asking for audio on websites - they're asking for text. There are browsers that read text and convert it to a voice on the computer's sound system. That has been stated repeatedly in posts in this thread. It's in the original link - look:

Blind people access Web sites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen-reading software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen.

But Target's site lacks "alt-text," an invisible code embedded beneath a graphic on the Web site that a screen reader could use to provide a description of the image to a blind person, the suit said.

[iverglas]

97. what was I saying ...

Something about how crucial it is that people engaged in discussion about allocation of scarce resources be ... hmm, how'd it go? ... informed and speaking in good faith, that was it.

Amazing sometimes, ain't it?

[sendero]

109. No, I have not read the entire thread.

Nor do I wish to. If alt text is all they are asking for, then I would agree that is not so burdensome as asking for audio.

I wonder, did this person approach Target with the request before filing a lawsuit?

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. Yes, they did approach them

Basrawi said the plaintiffs began negotiating with Target after writing the retailer in May 2005. But talks broke down last month, and the company, whom the attorney described as "one of the biggest offenders," declined to modify its Web site.

"Blind people have complained about (Target's Web site) in particular," Basrawi said. "That one's gotten a lot of complaints, especially because it's completely unusable. A blind person cannot make a purchase independently on target.com."

[sendero]

113. Thank you..

... for pointing that out.

Now, I have to admit, it is not a cut and dried situation.

Alt text is really not a huge big deal to add, so calling it a reasonable accommodation is not far fetched.

I guess I'm backtracking at full speed here :)

[iverglas]

123. nope

I guess I'm backtracking at full speed here

Changing your mind based on information received and argument presented -- and honest, good faith consideration of them.

That's what words, and the brains we process 'em with, are for, after all! And if we didn't want to receive information and consider argument, goodness knows why we'd be here.

Now I guess if we all wanted to take the next step, we'd be writing to Target ...

[sendero]

125. Backtracking..

... is a euphemism for eating crow. I came out with forcefully stated opinions based not on what was in the article, but was in the thread and was either incorrect or misinterpreted by me.

It was stupid of me, and I'll try to avoid it in the future :)

[iverglas]

126. oh well then

If you want to eat crow, I won't actually stop you!

I shoulda maybe said changing one's views, and expressly acknowledging the error of one's previous ways. But truly, as long those views were expressed honestly and in good faith, though forcefully, I'm generally happy with just the changing bit. You're right, though, never hurts to acknowledge that they were stupid. ;)

The grease in the gears of social intercourse, and all that. We fleshy humans do tend to be more likely to listen to / agree with people who are nice to us.

Bit of that self-deprecating Canadian humour there, I'm sure will be noticed. That's what makes everybody like us so much, and we rely on that for getting our own way, having not much in the way of battleships to use for the purpose ...

[Gman]

38. Here's why this is a problem

I do a lot of computer training for low vision and blind folks so I know exactly why this is a problem.

There are two different types of software for the low vision and blind. The first is the text to speech and the second is a screen magnifier. I'll get back to text to speech in a minute. Screen magnifying software will magnify a screen 1.5x, 2x or anything up to and including 32x, that's 32 times the normal size.

If someone has a screen magnified at 5x, that means they are only looking at 20% of what you see on your screen at any time. Moving the mouse moves that 20% "window" around the entire desktop until you find what you want. Try covering up 80% of your screen and move the 20% of what is left around and you get an idea of how this works. (There are other ways to use screen magnifiers but the easiest way is to magnify the entire screen. Programs such as Zoomtext will also include a text to speech feature that will announce what you have clicked on or selected. It will read to you what is on a popup box and tell you what button is selected. For example: "Changes have been made to the document. Do you want to save your changes? Yes button selected. Press space bar to activate." Pretty efficient and straight forward for people with up to moderate vision loss. (It works the same way with straight text to speech software such as JAWS too. I think these screen magnifiers are useful up to about 10x or 12x. After 12x you're only looking at about 8% of the screen at any one time and are probably better off relying more on the speech feature.

Text to speech programs such as JAWS (and also Zoomtext) are great for reading Word documents or other similar straight text documents. Web pages are a totally different issue. The first problem is that literally everything is read by the program. For example, the DU Latest Threads page would be read by these programs as follows starting from the top right: "image, Democratic Underground (reads the alt text), link latest, link lobby, link myposts, link posts...". Every single thing on the page is read aloud. But what if you don't want to read every single thing on the page. Do you as someone with good vision read every single word on the page? Of course not. Your eyes go immediately to the first thread under the " Latest Discussion Threads - Page 1" heading. Someone using a screen magnifier can find this spot too.

But all is not necessarily lost for the completely blind because, for example, JAWS has a feature that lets you skip past the parts you don't want to hear by skipping to the next header. Headers are the bolder larger text. So on the DU Latest threads page it would fairly easy to skip to the Latest threds page by just typing an "H". So getting there may be easy, but depending on how the HTML in the page is laid out (and without getting into a primer on HTML), and even the browser being used, the program may start reading at that point but keep reading over into the next column, back into the left column, then through the latest threads column and continue. The text being read then makes no sense. The normal response I hear is, "What??" Maybe you can see why this is a problem. So I will often have the person look for a printer friendly page to start reading.

So maybe you're looking for a link to another page with something you want to read. Do you realize that a web page such as the CNN home page can contain 150 or 200 links and very often many more? Most blind and low vision software can create a list of links in a web page. But too often the links begin with (literally) something that looks like gibberish with no alt text. This often happens with advertising images. YOu can sort the links in alpha order and find what you want by arrowing up or down (the blind do not use a mouse, they use the keyboard only), but it's often not easy.

Personally, I think the lack of alt text is the least of the problem unless the image is the only link to where you want to go or what you want to buy. The alt text prompts the software to announce the description of the image which can be helpful if the alt text is concise and accurate. So alt text serves a purpose. On a larger scale, there needs to be a set of HTML standards for composing pages for the blind and low vision. I think websites need to bring back text only pages that were used for low speed connection. These are the easiest for the software to read. But, these pages don't display the fancy advertising graphics that make money. Many times, even if someone only magnifies a screen 2x or 3x, if they have a problem with glare they will invert the brightness of the screen (making the white background you see behind this text black the the text white, and similar reversals in the colors of images) making the advertising image quite unattractive.

So personally I hope this lawsuit takes off and makes some well needed changes. Hopefully it will make the advertising/marketing people that design these pages stop for a second and think about the fact that not everyone can see.

[sokar]

39. ZoomText User here N/T

.

[Gman]

45. So you know exactly what I'm talking about

but unfortunately its hard for other people to imagine.

I emailed the article to several people this morning. Hopefully this suit will get something going.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

43. Thanks for an informative, compassionate post n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Looking at the Target front page, the problem may be their overuse

of images with no alternate text. They have, for instance, an image (hosted on amazon.com, for some reason) of a list of about 12 subheadings under "Furniture and Home"), rather than the actual text for eash subheading. They then use the coordinates of the mouse to decide which subheading you clicked on - so the blind would never be able to use that. They also have menus that expand when you roll over them - or give a new page when you select them, so a blind user could go through that route. But if the method of using images of text and mapping the coordinates to links is common on their site, I can see why it's unusable for the blind.

[Gman]

56. You've got it

I don't know that any of the text to speech software would even be able to expand those mouseOver JavaScript expanding menus much less even read them. In fact this is completely useless to a completely blind user that does not use a mouse because the mouse has to hover over the image in order for the menu to expand. Even if this was an image to hover over, which in this case it is, and the image had alt text, there is no mouse used to hover with and expand the menu.

[suffragette]

61. Great explanation of the current situation

And as many of us age, quite a few will have low vision, from cataracts, macular degeneration, etc. Why not develop a process of inclusion in design while this environment (the internet) is still relatively young? Why not take the steps to reach out to the wider audience or market rather than exclude them? It's always easier to do this in earlier stages than later. And Universal Design often has additional benefits for everyone, as anyone using ramps to haul items on dollies or suitcases can attest.
On another note, when Apple introduced a beta version of Voiceover (their newly built-in screenreader to OS X) and offered it as a download to test it, many people without vision problems were excited by the idea and downloaded it. Why? Because they were excited by the idea of having their computer read the text to them, thinking of it as a more futuristic way of interface (think Star Trek and the talking computers). Of course, they ran into the whole menu reading function and realized this wasn't what they had in mind. Still, eventually Universal Design will probably take us in this direction and we will all benefit from having more options and access.

[Mithras61]

73. Just an aside here...

I use the Opera web browser because it has magnification built into it (I just hit the + or - key when I'm not in a text box) and it handles images and text much better than IE or Firefox. It does a pretty good job of handling formatting as well (so that tool bars don't completely disappear, etc.). For those who have visual impairment but can still see somewhat, it may be a decent alternative.

[Gman]

78. I've tried the magnification features in Opera

and they're ok. Generally, however, blind and low vision folks use a magnifier all the time. As far as speech to text, there is little support in any of the software for anything other than IE. Zoomtext works somewhat with Firefox well with a plugin (I haven't checked it yet for version 1.5). JAWS does fairly well with Firefox.

[Mithras61]

81. I understand about frequency of magnifier use...

I thought I'd bring up Opera because so few people even know it exists. I wasn't referring to the text-to-speech function, because so many packages rely on plug-ins that (as you noted) only work in Firefox & IE (although you'd be surprised how many work in Opera if you have Firefox installed and copy the plug-in files to the Opera plug-ins folder).

I was thinking strictly in terms of native functionality that side-steps some of the issues associated with using a magnifier. I frequently use the "zoom in" feature instead of putting on my glasses or contacts (I'm not nearly as incapacitated as some folks - I'm at -4.75) because they agravate my headaches.

[Ignis]

94. Great explanation, thanks.

I used to volunteer at the local Braille Library, but that was 15+ years ago. I've always wondered what web-based options are available currently for the sightless.

[kiraboo]

44. This might sound offensive, but I believe that our willingness

to defend such a lawsuit is one of the things that weakens us and makes us look ridiculous. Simply put, not every disability can or should be accommodated. If I owned a business I recognize that I must comply with the existing law. But when there is no such existing law, then I have the right to decide who or what else I must accommodate. I have acid reflux disease and can't eat fatty foods. Does that mean I should sue McDonald's for not providing me with an extensive low-fat menu? It's ridiculous. I eat elsewhere. We can't have everything we want, all the time. And whether or not the company can afford it is simply not the issue.

[sendero]

47. No argument here..

... a little common sense goes a long way here. This is roughly akin to folks who think the economic problems of the country can be solved in an instant by making the minimum wage $20 per hour.

If only it were that simple.

[sokar]

48. That must mean you don't want my money or vote

Being disabled i am tired of people telling me they know whats best. I am not stupid i completed my masters "blindfolded" lets see you try that. And before any noe says "you had help" no one took the tests for me and no one did my work for me.
Do me a favor close your eyes and walk around your home for 3 hours the comparison of Acid Reflux is patronizing at best and insulting at worst. Get Real.

[iverglas]

62. thanks

Quoting you: "Being disabled i am tired of people telling me they know whats best."

I think anyone under any disadvantage feels the same way.

The problem when most people try to "put themselves in the shoes" of someone else is that they are still themselves, just in a different pair of shoes.

When I break my foot (as I tend to do), I can know how it feels to be immobile, in pain, unable to do things and go places, even depressed as a result. But I can't know how it feels to know that this will not change. I can get a taste of how a person with a disability feels, but I cannot be a person with a disability.

For anyone to call it "frivolous" for someone else to say, sincerely and honestly, that s/he needs something in order to live fractionally more easily and well -- still nowhere near as easily and well as most people live -- is something less than "liberal".

There can be discussions of how resources, public and private, are best allocated. Resources are always scarce and there is always competition for them, so those discussions have to happen. Dismissing the claims on resources made by people whose need is greater than most others', particularly because one arrogantly assumes that one knows better than them, is offensive.

Years ago, I attended to a public debate of a proposal, by a group of low-income women, that the city purchase a small rural property that could be used as a place for sole-parent mothers and their kids to have a few days a year of respite from urban poverty. The good burghers in attendance insisted that this was a poor use of their tax dollars and that anyhow this wasn't what these people really needed, it was this that or some other thing. The obvious underlying belief was that poor women are either greedy or stupid, or both. Fortunately, there were enough reasonable, decent people in attendance that when I stood up and said just that -- poor women are neither greedy nor stupid -- I got an ovation.

Let me say it here too. People with disabilities are neither greedy nor stupid. And the assertion that their claims are made out of greed rather than need or that they are too stupid know what they really need, no matter how subtly it is made, is uninformed and offensive in the extreme.

[kiraboo]

83. With respect, money and votes should not be the criteria

which determine our policies. And I regret I chose the acid reflux as an example. I also have rheumatoid arthritis and cannot manage stairs or even bumpy walkways during flare-ups. I haven't been able to move at any pace quicker than a slow amble for ten years. Please do not assume I am an ignorant and insensitive bumpkin simply because we happen to disagree on this issue.

Do you believe that people who are intellectually unequipped to manage college or grad school should have the right to sue the educational institution because their disability is not being "respected". Because to my mind, if you have trouble performing simple mathematical functions, or you can't make it through "Crime and Punishment" then you, too, are handicapped relative to much of society. How do we resolve this inequality?

At what point do you believe society has the right to draw the line? If your answer is, once all MY personal needs are met, then you envision a doomed society. IMHO.

[sokar]

102. Mental disabilities are a different can of worms

I am arguing for blindness because i have first hand knowledge .
This is no different than asking for wheelchair accessibility. i Use many web sites to do the shopping i need.

And I always use my money and votes to affect policies in the way i want that is what politics is all about. Thats why a am a member of many orgs that represent people with vision problems cause by the look of it here in this thread there are few i can count on

[iverglas]

110. problem is

You're the one who said:

our willingness to defend such a lawsuit is one of the things that weakens us and makes us look ridiculous.

and I think that's what sokar was probably referring to with the "want our votes" comment. I suspect that sokar saw the all too common willingness of many who claim to be "liberal" to sell out people whose desire for equal or fair treatment is unpopular.

I just don't understand questions like this:

Do you believe that people who are intellectually unequipped to manage college or grad school should have the right to sue the educational institution because their disability is not being "respected".

or the ever-popular "should we give the blind driver's licences?"

A disability is generally regarded as something that creates an impediment to doing things that are part of everyday living -- for instance, Canadian income tax law gives a tax credit where a doctor certifies that "the impairment is a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment the effects of which are such that the individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted". It refers to specific impairments:

- a sight impairment
- a speech impairment
- a hearing impairment
- an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in feeding or dressing themself, or in walking
- an impairment with respect to an individual's ability in perceiving, thinking and remembering

Moving about the world, eating and performing basic personal functions, seeing and hearing the environment, communicating in some way with others in it, mentally processing it -- these are the substance of the abilities that "disability" is used to refer to.

My inability to run the four-minute mile is not a disability, so my being disqualified from the Olympic team would not be discrimination. Inability to walk across the room is a disability. Inability to read "Crime and Punishment", your example, is not a disability, but inability to see the pages it is written on is.

If someone is unable to do grad school work because of a disability, that is one thing. If someone is unable to do grad school work because of a lesser level of ability, that's really another.

And I'm sure we can agree that a person with a serious intellectual impairment would not be able to do grad school work no matter how much assistance was provided. People with disabilities who want assistance for doing things like grad school work -- the essence of which is intellectual performance, not the typing or reading or walking up stairs that they are unable to do -- are really not asking that the work be done for them.

How do we resolve the inequality that derives from different levels of ability? We don't. We reward people with higher levels of ability for what they are able to do. That's not necessarily my opinion of how it should be resolved, but it's how we do it. We reward people who can win on the playing field in the courtroom highly; we reward people who can sweep floors or teach children less.

No one is asking to be rewarded equally regardless of ability. No one is demanding to be assisted in doing things they are unable to do. What is claimed is assistance in doing things that some people are disabled from doing and that must be done in order to do what they are able to do. While there may be times when it's difficult to distinguish the two, it really isn't usually that difficult to tell the difference.


At what point do you believe society has the right to draw the line?

The question is really at what point society (or whomever society is seeking to impose the burden of accommodation on) is justified in drawing the line.

And that does call for discussion. But trivializing disability as equivalent to lesser ability doesn't contribute much.

If your answer is, once all MY personal needs are met, then you envision a doomed society. IMHO.

Myself, I would never presume that anyone might even remotely possibly offer that answer, so it would not occur to me to even raise the subject. No one here has suggested that all his/her personal needs should be met. I doubt that anyone with a disability ever dares to even dream of such a world.

[readmoreoften]

105. Welcome Sokar

The post you were responding to was selfish, ridiculous, patronizing, and absurd. I'm glad you can read this site :) Welcome to DU.

[Gman]

53. Acid reflux doesn't prevent you from finding what you want

at the lowest cost and participating in the competitive economic environment. The point of this suit is that the Target site, by not displaying the alt text, makes it difficult for the blind and low vision to find the best deals. ECommerce websites are essentially no different from the traditional brick and mortar businesses. We've done away with curbs around these brick and mortar building and put in wheelchair ramps. Now, the wheelchair bound don't even have to go through the rigors of getting out to go shopping and into the store they can just go online. Websites that are not user friendly for the blind and low vision have essentially put those curbs back up and taken out those wheelchair ramps for another class of disabled people.

[kiraboo]

84. I see your point. And my response must be

that we are not entitled to having complete access to everything of benefit in society. What you are actually saying is that the blind woman cannot, with the exact same ease as either the wheelchair-bound or fully functional individual, search out the best deals at Target. Call me crazy, but I fail to view that as a "cause" we ought to rally around. I just don't.

[readmoreoften]

106. I'm just going to call you selfish, rude, and ridiculous.

Yeah, blind people should have to shop in expensive stores, because the blind are all white and rich. The blind should also be forced to go out and get in their cars and have their chauffeurs drive them to shop as well, because blind people shopping on-line is a frivolous cause. Oh yeah, and not all stores should be wheelchair accessible either. Their drivers should have to drive them all over the county to buy groceries and clothes. Down with frivolous blind people! Your acid reflux is a mighty comparision.

[Gman]

111. I'm not arguing that it should be a "cause" for us

as there are plenty of advocates that will take up that flag and charge with it. They're going to do it and all we can do is sit back with a box of popcorn.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. Building websites with text readers in mind...

...is a generally-accepted practice, and not difficult.

It's certainly less difficult than rebuilding all the sidewalks in a town to accomodate wheelchairs.

[snooper2]

59. found this related article...

Travel Web sites agree to be accessible to blind
By Michael Gormley, Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. — In one of the first enforcement actions of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the Internet, two major travel services have agreed to make sites more accessible to the blind and visually impaired.
Priceline.com and Ramada.com have agreed to changes that will allow users with "screen reader software" and other technology to navigate and listen to the text throughout their Web sites, according to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-08-20-lowsighted-sites_x.htm

[FarrenH]

71. I think its an unreasonable suit, absent other facts

There is an obvious difference between a lack of enabling features and actively preventing the disabled from using a site. Some of the comparisons made above are fatally flawed.

The site in question can be compared to a shop that lacks facilities for the disabled, but not a shop that refuses to serve the disabled (or black people, as one spurious comparison above has it). Active measures imply the intent to discriminate. Passive neglect does not.

There are, admittedly, scenarios where neglect may be deliberate. For instance, a store may neglect to stock certain goods because they specifically don't want the people that purchase those goods to shop there. However, such discrimination-by-neglect can only be inferred from additional information, such as the fact that the store owner is, say, a neo-nazi. The simple fact that something is absent in no way implies that there is an intent to discriminate.

That said, I have no problem with reasonable laws that encourage or enforce action that would address the needs of the disabled, such as ramps at shopping centres. The law doesn't simply have to reflect moral obligation, which is in any event often a debatable arena with fuzzy boundaries. It can also reflect the desires of the electorate to engineer a better society and efforts to that end.

If such laws are in place in California (specific laws demanding enabling features), then the case is reasonable in that it demands compliance with the law. If it is based on more general laws about discrimination, implying that the company is being accused of active neglect, then it is obviously unreasonable.

[iverglas]

75. ah, spurious comparisons

I so love being talked about.

Here's how my comparison went:

Not me:
If a store is badly run (items on the wrong shelves, not the things I want, poor service, whatever) then I don't use it - I find an alternative. I don't immediately throw a law suit at them!

Me:
If you are black and the store prohibits black people from entering, you go find another store!

Gee. I wonder where the spurious comparison actually was.

Moi, I think it was in comparing someone finding a store's neatness policies not to his/her taste to someone finding a store impossible to enter.

Active measures imply the intent to discriminate. Passive neglect does not.

That statement may have been relevant a few decades ago. "Intent to discriminate" has kinda been replaced by "refusal to make reasonable accommodation" in these matters, these days. So when you say:

The simple fact that something is absent in no way implies that there is an intent to discriminate.

You are jousting at straw.

If you want to joust with me, feel free to reply to my posts rather than talking about them.

[FarrenH]

90. Iverglas

No reason to take a combative tone, friend.

I read this thread at work and, after a long drive, responded at home. I confused your post with others. like sokar, f'rinstance:

"Cutting off access to sites is no different than not allowing someone with a wheelchair into the local Target"

In the above the left side not = what the web site is doing (neglect not active discrimination as per my post). Clearly a lack of logic here. I just confused your comments about black customers with the posts I was actually referring to. Obviously in sokar's world, not equipping the shop with a ramp is the same as actively disbarring wheelchair-bound individuals, a non-sequitar if ever I saw one.

So my post was not actually a strawman challenge to you (sorry about the mixup :) ), but the point stands.

[Nihil]

120. Yep. You were caught again.

> I so love being talked about.

Sauce for the goose ... :-)

>Here's how my comparison went:
>
> Not me: ( <- me! )
> If a store is badly run (items on the wrong shelves, not the things#
> I want, poor service, whatever) then I don't use it - I find an
> alternative. I don't immediately throw a law suit at them!
>
> Me:
> If you are black and the store prohibits black people from entering,
> you go find another store!
>
> Gee. I wonder where the spurious comparison actually was.

Well you either made a spurious comparison or simple emotive strawman
but it's your call.

> Moi, I think it was in comparing someone finding a store's neatness
> policies not to his/her taste to someone finding a store impossible
> to enter.

In that case it is you who has to learn to read.

"Items on the wrong shelves" means you can't locate them (even though
they are indeed present in the store. Nothing to do with racism.

"Not the things I want" means that the items aren't present in the
store. Nothing to do with racism (or sexism in your alternative straw
persons).

"Poor service" *might* be due to racism, sexism or whatever but I had
intended it to mean "poor service" rather than "poor service because
the owner is a racist/whatever". Strangely enough, if I'd wanted to
use the race/anti-gay/anti-fem approach then I would have written it.

Furthermore, everything in this thread (or at least, all relevent posts)
has been about the ability to use a particular web site (or not).
I understand the problems that the blind or partially sighted have
(more so now thanks to some helpful posts) but at the end of the day,
this is not the same case as someone wilfully putting in barriers to
deliberately exclude a category of the public so why are so many people
rushing in to pretend that it is?

I don't think we have any "Target" stores over here - are they really
so wonderful in quality and price that there are no alternatives?
Online shopping frees you from having to visit the store yourself.
This means that you are not confined to local stores. Why not take
advantage of this increased freedom to use progressive, considerate
stores instead of inconsiderate ones?

Surely this provides a better differentiator than some list somewhere
of "Blue vs Red" shops - i.e., support the ones that actually *do*
take the care & effort rather than whining at the others?

[iverglas]

124. as I was saying

I don't think we have any "Target" stores over here - are they really so wonderful in quality and price that there are no alternatives? ...

Sometimes, even *if* someone is speaking honestly and in good faith, s/he is speaking from ignorance.

Might it not have been wise to ask this question first?

For the rest, it has been answered in my other post. I remain baffled how so many people can so often be so baffled by analogies.

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Did Dr. Johnson just call women dogs? Nope.

[Nihil]

127. Or not?

> Might it not have been wise to ask this question first?

Why?

Why should a brand name store overpower common sense?
Why should brand loyalty (or antipathy) outweigh consumer choice?

The name "Target" means less to me than "Tesco" or "Sainsbury"
or "Walmart" but the principle still applies: if their website
is crap then don't use it. Complain to them (as this student did)
by all means but sue them? There is a certain mindset that seems
to require recourse to a lawyer in the case of a difference of
opinion, regardless of how trivial it is. Are you seriously
claiming that this is the sensible way to resolve issues?

> For the rest, it has been answered in my other post.

Or not as the case may be. Nicely skipped over the points you can't
address (again).

> I remain baffled how so many people can so often be so baffled by analogies.

Yep. You sure are baffled by analogies.

[donheld]

135. Welcome to DU FarrenH

:hi:

[progressivebydesign]

86. God that's stupid.

Sorry.. no offense to the blind who might be on DU. Wait.. no website is blind friendly;.

[readmoreoften]

108. Apparently, accept for the many websites that are blind friendly.

No offense to the people who post their opinions without reading a line of fact beforehand.

[0rganism]

89. Not so sure a lawsuit is the way to go on this

However, the article does say,
'Basrawi said the plaintiffs began negotiating with Target after writing the retailer in May 2005. But talks broke down last month, and the company, whom the attorney described as "one of the biggest offenders," declined to modify its Web site.'

So it's possible a good-faith effort to negotiate a reasonable solution has failed. On the other hand, I just went to their website (www.target.com) and it has to be one of the most annoying pieces of shit I've ever seen, damn, it nearly gave me a seizure when my browser loaded it. It's quite possible that the only people who could survive an extended browsing session would be the blind.

For me, if I were the Target execs, this would be a no-brainer: for much less than the cost of a team of lawyers, I'd fix the website so it has the necessary text hooks, and maybe get rid of some of the more ludicrous graphic effects. This is not rocket science.

Simplicity in web design is getting to be something of a lost art, unfortunately, and the more needlessly complex a website becomes, the harder it is to adapt for different browsers and accessibility.

[951-Riverside]

96. *whew* Atleast she isnt suing us

[LisaL]

115. Yea, DU isn't blind friendly, is it?

I mean, how ridiculous can these lawsuits get?

[genie_weenie]

116. This thread is already to big for my comment to be read

But, touching on something else, my problem is do we really want the Government handling this? Can't this student get together friends, teachers, small busniess men and put a hurt on the purse strings?

It's expansion of the governments power into another facet of our lives. Sure, in this case it may be right, but ask yourselves if you want the * admin being able to tell companies what their websites *must* contain or what standards their site *must* conform too...

[flashdebadge]

117. Absolutely ridiculous (eom)

[NuttyFluffers]

118. good for her. i get sick of flash saturated websites, and i can see

i know people who are disabled and computers help keep them in contact with the outside world in a vibrant and active way that is hard to duplicate with any other recent piece of information/communication technology. and i know of many people who are in their years and over-saturated websites are far too much for them to navigate. hell, i'm relatively young and i'm having difficulty with some of the more egregious sites; everything is a garbled mess, graphics, pop-ups, and disjointed text abounds. considering the disabled are well represented in the computer community, and it is in many ways a lifeline to independence (something we all want to encourage), it doesn't make good PR or business sense for Target to not provide a simpler, more standardized website which countless of other companies have already been able to do. i applaud her and hope that Target can rectify this.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spinoza]

130. I have one leg (AK)

There must be someone I can sue. Any lawyers out there who can help?

[The Straight Story]

131. Does DU provide this function?

Never looked and not sure where to really...

[muriel_volestrangler]

138. Yes, for the most part it does

The particular feature mentioned in the story, 'alternate text', is there for most of the icons DU uses. If you use the Firefox browser on a PC, you can click on an image with the right hand button, and look at its properties, which includes the alternate text. Most of the DU ones seem to have this - the "Democratic Underground.com" logo at the top left has "Democratic Underground", the Donate button has "donate to DU", and so on (someone has noticed that the 3 very small icons near the top left all read "printer-friendly format", although that only applies to one - but at least they have the correct text beside them, which the text-to-speech browsers can use as well, of course). Alternate text is not there, for instance, on people's avatars - but that's not a vital part of the site (after all, there's an option not to display them for everyone).

A problem on the Target site is that a lot of what looks like lists of text is actually pictures of lists of text - with no alternate text available either. These are completely unusable by the blind.

[dysfunctional press]

134. boo-hoo...

as a private business, Target(tar-zhay) has a right to market to it's chosen customer base...i hope the suit gets tossed out. and no, i'm not blind- but i am disabled.

[SKKY]

137. Silly, silly, stupid lawsuit....