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.

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.

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 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.

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?