Comments on: Will Target get schooled? http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Neal http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-59205 Neal Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:32:50 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-59205 The sad thing is it wasn't that hard of a fix for Target to do. Obviously their product pages read from a database, how hard is it to read the same field for the product title into the alt attribute? It's not like they had to create a seperate column in the db just for all the products alt attributes. I'm not sure on the specifics for their checkout process but I know it involved javascript and mouse movements. That also is probably an easy fix. In a way Target has ruined it for the rest of us, which will end up putting a magnifying glass on the rest of the internet. Probably the only thing funnier than Target's laziness is the fact that blind people bother using the internet (and computers) in the first place. Being a able-visioned person I would probably give up using a computer if I were to go blind and take up something that uses another sense (music anyone?) Here's the question of the day...do blind people have jobs? If not, I guess I can see why they're looking for ways to pass their time from 9-5. The sad thing is it wasn’t that hard of a fix for Target to do. Obviously their product pages read from a database, how hard is it to read the same field for the product title into the alt attribute? It’s not like they had to create a seperate column in the db just for all the products alt attributes.

I’m not sure on the specifics for their checkout process but I know it involved javascript and mouse movements. That also is probably an easy fix.

In a way Target has ruined it for the rest of us, which will end up putting a magnifying glass on the rest of the internet.

Probably the only thing funnier than Target’s laziness is the fact that blind people bother using the internet (and computers) in the first place. Being a able-visioned person I would probably give up using a computer if I were to go blind and take up something that uses another sense (music anyone?)

Here’s the question of the day…do blind people have jobs? If not, I guess I can see why they’re looking for ways to pass their time from 9-5.

]]>
By: London http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58844 London Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:10:40 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58844 When they can and they won't do it , then is time for action When they can and they won’t do it , then is time for action

]]>
By: Ryan Ternier http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58709 Ryan Ternier Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:35:39 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58709 The USA is full of sue happy morons. Sure, a site is not accesible. So, instead of SUEING them the judge should just order them to fix it, by a certain date. it's not like the blind got hurt because of this. I know people who are blind, and deaf. However, they don't complain when something goes their way because they have a SPINE! The judge should've just slapped the company with a "You're an Idiot" sticker, and forced them to fix their web pages by a certain date. The USA is full of sue happy morons.

Sure, a site is not accesible. So, instead of SUEING them the judge should just order them to fix it, by a certain date. it’s not like the blind got hurt because of this. I know people who are blind, and deaf. However, they don’t complain when something goes their way because they have a SPINE!

The judge should’ve just slapped the company with a “You’re an Idiot” sticker, and forced them to fix their web pages by a certain date.

]]>
By: Mike Ebert http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58708 Mike Ebert Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:56:07 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58708 The way I see it, it's not that hard to make a website accessible to the blind or deaf, or even the blind AND deaf. It's not an unreasonable request, either. Web sites are, for the most part, still based on text. Most images, audio, and even video can be explained or complimented by a text equivalent. Text can be presented by a screen reader or a braille machine (ever seen Sneakers?). So why not provide an accessible site? Things like making driving or flying an airplane or playing football games accessible to the deaf, dumb, blind quadrapolegic cripple won't happen because they're not reasonable, realistic, or easy. This case is about balancing costs - the cost of inaccessibility to the blind vs. the cost of making an accessible site to Target. I think Target is going to lose because the cost to the blind is much greater than the cost to Target . It you had a case about the cost of not playing football to a quadrapolegic vs. the cost to a football league to accomodate him, it would end up unfair against the football league and the quadrapolegic would lose. That's why Target will probably lose, and that's why the precedent from this case won't set up a bunch of ridiculous new accessibility cases. The way I see it, it’s not that hard to make a website accessible to the blind or deaf, or even the blind AND deaf. It’s not an unreasonable request, either. Web sites are, for the most part, still based on text. Most images, audio, and even video can be explained or complimented by a text equivalent. Text can be presented by a screen reader or a braille machine (ever seen Sneakers?). So why not provide an accessible site?

Things like making driving or flying an airplane or playing football games accessible to the deaf, dumb, blind quadrapolegic cripple won’t happen because they’re not reasonable, realistic, or easy.

This case is about balancing costs – the cost of inaccessibility to the blind vs. the cost of making an accessible site to Target. I think Target is going to lose because the cost to the blind is much greater than the cost to Target . It you had a case about the cost of not playing football to a quadrapolegic vs. the cost to a football league to accomodate him, it would end up unfair against the football league and the quadrapolegic would lose.

That’s why Target will probably lose, and that’s why the precedent from this case won’t set up a bunch of ridiculous new accessibility cases.

]]>
By: c. s. http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58706 c. s. Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:22:09 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58706 The law requires you to make a reasonable effort to make the site accessible. No one is expecting you to write assistive devices to make using the site easier for users with disabilities. You are expected to do the little things like proper alt attributes (*especially* on images used as links), not using microscopic font sizes, transcripts of audio files, subtitles for videos, not breaking the user's browser, etc. Doing little things like these barely increase the cost of constructing the website. In some cases, inaccessible elements like Flash or fancy JavaScript that deviates from user's expectations for site behavior, cost a lot more than filling in proper alt attributes. The law applies to business and government websites, because they are considered an extension of their physical outlets. No one is going to sue YouTube because the blind can't watch videos. The law requires you to make a reasonable effort to make the site accessible. No one is expecting you to write assistive devices to make using the site easier for users with disabilities. You are expected to do the little things like proper alt attributes (*especially* on images used as links), not using microscopic font sizes, transcripts of audio files, subtitles for videos, not breaking the user’s browser, etc. Doing little things like these barely increase the cost of constructing the website. In some cases, inaccessible elements like Flash or fancy JavaScript that deviates from user’s expectations for site behavior, cost a lot more than filling in proper alt attributes.

The law applies to business and government websites, because they are considered an extension of their physical outlets. No one is going to sue YouTube because the blind can’t watch videos.

]]>
By: Frank Thoml http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58704 Frank Thoml Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:10:49 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58704 Respecting people is one thing; funding accessibility for everyone with any kind of disability is another. Respecting everyone is crucial, and making efforts to make sites (and kiosks, billboards, phone systems, drive-throughs, and so on) accessible to people with disabilities helps to prove they are worth every bit as much to us as individuals as those without disabilities. However, trying to make sites and other things accessible to everyone would be so expensive that no one could afford to offer anything to anyone. If you provide audio for your site, what is to prevent the people who are both blind and deaf from initiating a class-action suit? If you present information at a 10th-grade level, what is to prevent someone from suing you on behalf of the mentally challenged? A million other unfair scenarios are quite possible in light of this lawsuit. Some will argue this is only about accessibility for the blind, but when we get to where the blind can use any site and any utility they want, will anyone think it fair that people who are blind and deaf, mute, quadriplegic, mentally challenged, or with any other combination of disabilities shouldn't be able to use those same services? Respecting people is one thing; funding accessibility for everyone with any kind of disability is another.

Respecting everyone is crucial, and making efforts to make sites (and kiosks, billboards, phone systems, drive-throughs, and so on) accessible to people with disabilities helps to prove they are worth every bit as much to us as individuals as those without disabilities. However, trying to make sites and other things accessible to everyone would be so expensive that no one could afford to offer anything to anyone.

If you provide audio for your site, what is to prevent the people who are both blind and deaf from initiating a class-action suit? If you present information at a 10th-grade level, what is to prevent someone from suing you on behalf of the mentally challenged? A million other unfair scenarios are quite possible in light of this lawsuit.

Some will argue this is only about accessibility for the blind, but when we get to where the blind can use any site and any utility they want, will anyone think it fair that people who are blind and deaf, mute, quadriplegic, mentally challenged, or with any other combination of disabilities shouldn’t be able to use those same services?

]]>
By: Scott http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58703 Scott Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:40:27 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58703 Anyone want to join me in a class action suit against all automakers for not making cars accessible for blind people? Anyone want to join me in a class action suit against all automakers for not making cars accessible for blind people?

]]>
By: Jen Fe http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58701 Jen Fe Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:41:56 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58701 Great article and crazy story :-) I think too, that it is a landmark case for web accessibility. like Derek and Matt said... Great article and crazy story :-) I think too, that it is a landmark case for web accessibility. like Derek and Matt said…

]]>
By: ryo http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58698 ryo Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:34:26 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58698 I did not know a site inaccessibility will land the owner in a legal case in california. Webmaster should take note of the issue involve and try to accomodate the blind internet user to avoid getting into legal trouble in california. I did not know a site inaccessibility will land the owner in a legal case in california. Webmaster should take note of the issue involve and try to accomodate the blind internet user to avoid getting into legal trouble in california.

]]>
By: Tribulus http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/comment-page-1/#comment-58692 Tribulus Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:30:12 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/10/05/will-target-get-schooled/#comment-58692 Many web developers and the companies they serve seem to think there’s something sacrosanct about the websites they build. There isn’t. If you choose to discriminate on the basis of disability then you should be held to account. Many web developers and the companies they serve seem to think there’s something sacrosanct about the websites they build. There isn’t. If you choose to discriminate on the basis of disability then you should be held to account.

]]>