Website Accessibility a Legal Issue?

geekwithsoul asks: "Target is being sued because its website is not usable by the sight-impaired. While this story from the San Francisco Chronicle is from February, I've seen surprising little coverage of it in either mainstream or tech-focused media. Is the threat of legal action the only really effective way to get companies to create accessible (and thus standard-compliant) websites?" "From the article:

'Advocates for the blind said the lawsuit is a shot across the bow for retailers, newspapers and others who have Web sites the blind cannot use. They chose Target because of its popularity and because of a large number of complaints by blind patrons.'

Considering how much accessibility and standards support is available in modern web browsers (well, except for that one we all know), and a rising probability of legal exposure for sites not meeting these needs, is there really any excuse for online retailers and others to not make their websites accessible to all?"

Comments

DUH

[shaitand]

In a world where executives are liable for actions that adversely affect the bottom line it certainly is required. Accesiblity for the blind likely costs more than it generates in revenue.

Re:DUH

[jafiwam]

True, but where does it land when "accessability for the blind" also means "can be listed easily by search engines" is factored in?

Accessablity is something that goes pretty close hand in hand with Googlebot, Guliver and all the other spiders out there being able to get around within the site. So it's a good idea to do the work as you get both blind users and a good indexing.

There is too much fancy crap in a lot of web sites anyway. I don't visit target to see fancy HTML and flash. I visit to buy stuff.

Re:DUH

[rocjoe71]

From the outside, that does sound right, however, having had to learn how to put together websites that had to pass ADA (American Diabilities Act) and w3c-Level 1 compliance for accessibility I can really say that the basic steps for this kind of compliance actually make your web pages better organized, and easier to use for all.

On the other hand, going down a path popular in the XHTML camp, where you put all your content in DIV tags organized in a logical sequence then use CSS to position everything (see http://www.zengarden.com/), not only will you have a document that is parse-able by a screenreader but that same document is going to be indexed more thoroughly and faster by search engine robots.

The most positive aspect of this is its just an education issue, if you learn how to do the right treatment to your web pages it takes little time to learn and once you're ove the learning curb it takes no extra time over doing it the sloppy way.

Re:DUH

[schon]

Accesiblity for the blind likely costs more than it generates in revenue.

The same could be said for wheelchair ramps and automatic doors. Does that make it OK for buildings to exclude them?

Re:DUH

[Bogtha]

On the other hand, going down a path popular in the XHTML camp, where you put all your content in DIV tags organized in a logical sequence then use CSS to position everything (see http://www.zengarden.com/), not only will you have a document that is parse-able by a screenreader but that same document is going to be indexed more thoroughly and faster by search engine robots.

Actually, "putting all your content in <div> tags" (you mean elements, not tags) is only going to harm the accessibility of a website. Properly structured HTML uses the most accurate element type available. For instance, if you use <div class="heading"> instead of <h1> , as lots of people do, user-agents will have no idea it's a heading, and it's actually a worse choice than <h1><font ...> .

Re:DUH

[shaitand]

You and a number of others seem to have confused my statements. I simply said that the summary was correct and explained why. I never said that reality was a good thing.

Re:DUH

[J2000_ca]

I agreed with you right up until you put . It's the blind leading the blind with xhtml isn't it. Leave out the font tags and we'll all be better off.

Re:DUH

[Thing 1]

Accesiblity for the blind likely costs more than it generates in revenue.

Exactly. So I would ask geekwithoutsoul, who asked this:

Is the threat of legal action the only really effective way to get companies to create accessible (and thus standard-compliant) websites?

Does the law say anything about web sites?

With text like "the complaint is based on the theory" in TFA, as opposed to text like "the complaint sites law X, section Y, paragraph Z", I think this is more a publicity stunt than an actual case.

To directly answer the question: of course not. You could pay them. Corporations respond to dollars.

Re:DUH

[jrockway]

Instead of , you should do and then use CSS to style h1s that are of class foo:

.foo h1 {foo: bar; baz: bat;}

Since you should probably only have one h1 anyway, you're probably safe with not even using a class.

Re:DUH

[sehryan]

Exactly. Most CSS gurus out there will encourage you to use as few divs and classes as possible, instead reformatting the tags themselves.

Baiscally, I make my websites look as 1994 as possible without style sheets, then I go back and add the styles I need to make it look this way on screen, this way in print, and so on.

Re:DUH

[Bogtha]

A couple of people seem to have misinterpreted me, I am in no way condoning <font> . In fact I wrote a user stylesheet to kill <font> completely. I'm pointing out that even <h1> coupled with <font> is better than using <div> elements everywhere.

.foo h1 {foo: bar; baz: bat;}

This doesn't style <h1> elements of class foo. It styles <h1> elements that have an ancestor of class foo. To do what you want, you need something like:

h1.foo {foo: bar; baz: bat;}

Although, as you say, it's better to use context than explicit classes in most cases.

Re:DUH

[Ucklak]

Target is a private entity, if they don't want to cater to blind people, blind people shouldn't shop there. It's that simple.
If it were a government website, the I'd say it needs to be 508 compliant.

If Target's shareholders say "Make our site 508 compliant" then Target has to listen, not the whinings from a group of blind people who really are just the puppet for the lawyer who has it out for anybody with money. It's the same lawyer that sues mom and pop stores for not having door wide enough for wheelchairs even though they are grandfathered in.

Re:DUH

[shaitand]

I think the proper way to handle this is with incentive programs. Perhaps give tax breaks to corporations that have sites certified to standards for accesibility and set the bar for that certification suitably high.

I think most corporations would respond to this. It gives them a direct incentive and it doesn't really cost taxpayers much because corporate accountants are dodging the taxes via more grey accounting methods anyway.

A direct incentive like this coupled with the tech guys explaining how much easier to maintain standards compliant sites are would get the job done. And would do so without forcing any hands or nasty lawsuits.

Re:DUH

[shaitand]

Agreed, although there is a legitimate issue here. At least if we are ignoring the harsh realities of natural selection.

Refer to this post for my solution:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180965&cid=149 80924

Re:DUH

[shaitand]

tsk tsk now you are suggesting executives make a decision that is the logical conclusion of technical competance.

Executives are only interested in suggestions like this is they provide a readily measurable benefit. Even if the numbers are bullshit but look good they only want to implement something with a measurable result. "I produced a profit increase of X by doing Y" is good. Your suggestion is just too fuzzy. Why should an exec be interested in pushing for something that will cost a measurable amount of money without producing a measurable return? That makes them look bad.

Often this has already been considered anyway and googlebot will not be served the same content you are. Unfortunately the googlebot version allows a machine to parse the page but is not really parsable by humans.

Re:DUH

[Mr. Slippery]

Target is a private entity, if they don't want to cater to blind people, blind people shouldn't shop there.

No coroporation is a private enitity. Coroporations are chartered by governments.

It is sensible that in return for the priviledge of being chartered, that governments require corporations to behave in a way that promotes the public interest. That may include accessibility for the handicapped.

Re:DUH

[Ucklak]

What are you talking about?

Target can be a small shack with a single 2 foot wide door and a huge warehouse that delivers to just about anybody via website.
They don't have to cater to 2 foot wide people on invite only.
Instead they have big boxy stores with double entrances so skinny people, fat people, and people with disabilities can come in and shop their wares. It's their choice.

Are you saying that all of their print flyers have to be in braille too?
Target only has to do to do what it wants to do to generate income.
If not catering to the blind is one of thost things, than it's their call and it shouldn't be forced upon by my tax dollars.

Blind people should shop elsewhere. It's that simple.

CAPTCHA is a biggie

[tepples]

A major problem in the accessibility of the World Wide Web lately is CAPTCHA systems that distinguish sighted humans on the one hand from bots and blind humans on the other. For instance, Slashdot itself uses a CAPTCHA. Has anybody had success in getting a Slashdot account created through the e-mail method specified in the Slashdot CAPTCHA's alt text?

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[LordKazan]

CAPTCHA is a security measure and I know a blind guy going into computer science who thinks any blind person who doesn't have a friend who will get em past a CAPTCHA doesn't belong on said website.

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if someone has cracked /.'s captchas, but sometimes even I, a non-blind, non-retarded and literate human have trouble parsing its text (trouble = takes more than a second to read).

Looking at the captcha right now, it doesn't look that hard to defeat to me. A lot of undergrad AI courses have you write your own handwriting recognition software. Filtering out the non-text also seems fairly easy.

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[Ex Machina]

I've seen sites that offer an mp3 CAPTCHA. Not a great solution but, I imagine that blind people will likely have sound support on their machine.

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[Steinfiend]

How can he, and by extension you, say that? Why should one persons range (or lack thereof) of friends dictate which websites they can otherwise access? How about we put a CAPTCHA in Kanji on SlashDot? After all, anyone who doesn't have a Japanese friend doesn't belong on the website.

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[LordKazan]

His point was mostly
A) CAPTCHA is easy to get through - just have a friend read it to you
B) He doesn't expect everyone to go out of their way to accomodate him.

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[orderb13]

And what about deaf people?

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[Ex Machina]

The mp3 link is usually provided along with a visual CAPTCHA so the only people excluded are the deaf-mutes.

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean blind-deaf, deaf-mutes mean they can't hear or talk.

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[Ex Machina]

Yes, I should have just said HELLEN KELLERZ :D

Re:CAPTCHA is a biggie

[Bazman]

If the site offers an mp3 CAPTCHA then it might be easy to write a bot that does voice recognition to return the CAPTCHA key. It would have to be spoken in a way that would subvert voice recognition.

Maybe the CAPTCHA would have to be a simple question,such as "What comes next: four, five, six?", with variants such as "What number is before twenty six?". With enough variations it should be possible to require AI to get right :)

Barry

Unfortunately, yes.

[Pig Hogger]

Unfortunately, yes, suing will often be the only way.

Don't forget that too many websites are driven by marketoids whose world revolves around bullshit. Bullshit being the absence of substance, it is clear that those bullshitter will try to hide their absence of content behind smokescreens made out of Javascript and flash.

And marketoids consider themselves artists, and there are no people more willing to shove useless crap down people's throats than artists.

Re:Unfortunately, yes.

[TubeSteak]

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, ..., 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.

Exactly why is Target responsible for this students civil rights online?

Until someone passes a law requiring businesses on the internet to be ADA (with Disabilities Act) complaint... this student is just playing the "look at me" game.

Doesn't everyone knows the internet is not treated the same way as the brick and mortar world. If this kid wants things changed, he should petition his Congressperson &/or Senator.

Suing a large company doesn't gain my sympathy.

Re:Unfortunately, yes.

[mctk]

If he wins, won't that mean that Target was in violation of laws already in existence, in which case what reason does he have to contact his representatives? If he loses, then he has created a high profile case highlighting the fact that our current laws are not extending far enough.

Re:Unfortunately, yes.

[MBCook]

Suing a large company doesn't gain my sympathy.

But it is a lot faster.

Asking your Senator or Congressman means you have to get them to make a bill, introduce it, get it passed, etc. That is a long process. And that assumes that you can get them to do that over the corporations that don't want that bill passed (and will donate more money than you'll ever make).

Filing a lawsuit gets you instant publicity, which can be parlayed into capital to use with your representative to get a bill passed. Either way, the company will probably just fix the problem and then settle rather than fight it. And if you win, it is a precedent on your side you can use to get other companies to change their practices.

Plus, you only have to convince one judge you're right, or 12 jurors (depending on if you can somehow swing a jury trial). And "poor me, I can't buy things because the big evil Target hates the blind" plays much better with a judge or jury than all those representatives.

I don't blame them for this choice.

Re:Unfortunately, yes.

[extra88]

Who modded this up? There already is a law requiring (U.S.) businesses on the Internet to be ADA (with Disabilities Act) s/complaint/compliant/, it's called the *ADA.* Just because you stick and "e" or an "i" on the front of your business model doesn't mean you can just ignore laws that predate the web. Sometimes laws are passed or amended to clarify or define how they pertain or should be applied to new situations (as was done in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which only pertains to Federal IT), such as online commerce, but it's not an absolute requirement.

"...the internet is not treated the same way as the brick and mortar world." Sometimes. Sometimes! Fraud is still fraud, even when committed online. If Target instituted a policy not to sell to "niggers, spics, and jews" they'd get hit with a civil rights lawsuit whether is was at a brick 'n mortar store or their online store. This is the same thing. Their physical store has to be wheelchair accessible, their virtual store has to be accessible to the visually impaired.

The student is not playing the "look at me" game, it's the "look at them" game. Target is just a prominent example of a widespread problem. And it's not like this is out of the blue. Did you read the article? This student and others has been in communication with Target for many months, trying to pursuade them to fix their site, and only now is filing the lawsuit as those talks have gotten nowhere.

Re:Unfortunately, yes.

[ClamIAm]

there are no people more willing to shove useless crap down people's throats than artists.

While I agree in general with your post, I do disagree somewhat with this. Anyone who tries to shove "art" down other peoples' throats is not, in my opion, a true artist. Anyone screaming "HEY THIS IS REALLY GREAT" is not concerned about the artistic value of their work.

ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames...

[AudioEfex]

It's that simple. They are under no legal obligation to do so. If you read the article, this isn't specificly about Target, this group is trying to make some broader point and is using the legal system to do so and they picked Target because of it's popularity. There are better ways to go about this than a nusaince lawsuit.

Sometimes impossible...

[Southpaw018]

Sometimes, it's just not possible at all. My boss, for example, asks - rather, demands - that our organization's website be accessible to them in Dreamweaver. The problem is this: My pages are WAI A compliant and written in XHTML 1.0 Strict, XHTML 1.1, and CSS 2.1. The moment they hit "save" with Dreamweaver, it rewrites half the damn code in the page, changing indentations, switching out tags, and often changing things that weren't really any of its concern in the first place, adding CSS classes with names like "L1" instead of "bluebox" and inserting p tags everywhere. I'm left with a Microsoft-as-Borg kind of choice: assimilate and use Dreamweaver, or be defeated.

I try to create standards compliant, accessible websites, but the boss is worried about any emergencies that might pop up and require their immediate attention. Without being able to pull away from programs that change the pages around and aren't really aware of standards, I may not be able to do it at all.

(Side note: if anyone knows how to force the 'Reaver to leave my code alone, could you reply, please?)

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[CRCulver]

Do you do CJK work? I don't see what advantage XHTML 1.1 has for you over XHTML 1.0 Strict unless you are using type ruby. In fact, you have to serve XHTML 1.1 as application/xml+xhtml, which IE can't parse, while with XHTML 1.0 Strict there's the blessed loophole that still permits text/html.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a really good reply, but considering your signature, why bother?

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[mysqlrocks]

Dreamweaver does do some annoying stuff with your code, but not "the moment you hit save". I've been able to get around most of these issues in Dreamweaver MX 2004. What version are you using? Rather than go into specifics, I suggest you use the split code/design window and take note of exactly when Dreamweaver does its crap. Then, you can learn to avoid those traps or at least undo them when you run into them. While still annoying, Dreamweaver is much better than FrontPage when it comes to this crap.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[geekwithsoul]

I use Dreamweaver as well, and faced the same problem when I first started using it years ago. What you want to do is go into Edit > Preferences > Code Rewriting and deselect everything you don't want it to do. In addition, I also always turn off the auto close tag option under 'Code Hints' on the same dialog menu.

Dreamweaver is actually very capable of turning out standards compliant and accessiblity friendly code, it just needs a little tweaking when dealing with less than clueful users. Macromedia [now Adobe] had been fairly responsive to the concerns of the standards community, specifically The Web Standards Project which had a task force focusing on just Dreamweaver and standards compliance.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[Anonymous Coward]

ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.

I call bullcrap. You read all replies to your posts just like everybody else. You are reading this right now, aren't you?

Of course, now I have wounded your pride by calling you out, so you are going to pretend like you didn't see this. Now who is the coward?

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[chris_eineke]

I try to create standards compliant, accessible websites, but the boss is worried about any emergencies that might pop up and require their immediate attention.

Dude, instead of backing down you should talk you boss about his concerns and - this is the important part - address them. You are being paid to do that. If he worries about emergencies that require him to change the company's website, I think it is your job to calm him down, provide alternatives, and fix shit.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you shouldn't read /. then. Your right to free speech is forfeit. As of now, I'm going to start a new trend. Logged in users are modded to -6. You don't like it, eat a dick.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[metamatic]

Sounds to me like you should have a content management system, rather than expecting everyone to play web developer.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[Infernal Device]

I also always turn off the auto close tag option under 'Code Hints' on the same dialog menu.

Under what circumstances would you want a tag unclosed? There are some tags (img,br, etc.) that are self-closing, but just about every other tag requires a closing tag.

As for the reformatting issue, I have not found that DW's code reformatting is a hindrance at all to writing compliant code. So, I'm wondering what circumstances you've found that it isn't writing compliant code.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww, don't worry. I read your comment anyway.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[fred fleenblat]

with some unix-ish (or cygwin) text tools like diff and patch you should be able to extract the specific change somebody made in dreamweaver and apply that to the nicely formatted version (that you saved in subversion).

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[Telvin_3d]

It is not that someone might want a tag unclosed, but if I have forgotten to close a tag, I would rather have it not implemented, and it be an obvious mistake that I can then go back and correct, than to have the program close the tag in a place I might not want, where it could come back to bite me if I don't spot it.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is "L1" worse than "bluebox" ? "L1" is a better name. Imagine you change your CSS for ".bluebox" to be green. Now you have a class "bluebox" which is actually green.

XHTML should be semantic. The classes should have meaningfull names, such as "navigation", rather than describing the formating of the elements.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[MooUK]

And how are you going to do that without being logged in yourself?

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[mr_burns]

Demanding dreamweaver/wysiwyg 'access' usually is an end to a means. Basically, instead of hiring somebody to do site maintainance and updates, they want to make it so anybody can update the site. This usually is motivated by costs and process. If people can directly update the site instead of asking the web guy to do it... that's a benefit.

So in this kind of situation, you want to open a dialog with your boss about what "functionality" the site should have. If they say "it has to be able to be edited by dreamweaver" you should ask what the goal of that feature is. Why are those goals important.

Then you come back later with a list of ways in which those goals can be achieved. Keep dreamweaver in there as a comparison. And have an executive summary of the business case pros and cons of each item, with estimated costs.

So maybe you find that it costs less to build the site on top of an off-the-shelf content management system than it costs to buy dreamweaver licenses for everybody every time a new version comes out. And it costs less to maintain code that way than to fight with the code dreamweaver produces. That metric could use real-world data from your hours.

Re:Sometimes impossible...

[cdrudge]

The autoclosing of tags is more of an annoyance. If you have an existing block of text for instance that you want to make bold, as soon as you type "&", "" also appears. You then have to cut/delete that, go to the end of the block you want to bold, then retype/paste it.

If you are typing everything by hand initially, then it can be handy although I still find it annoying.

Freedom of Association maybe?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Hate to say it, but all of this politically correct stuff gets into freedom of association problems:

Considering how much accessibility and standards support is available in modern web browsers (well, except for that one we all know), and a rising probability of legal exposure for sites not meeting these needs, is there really any excuse for online retailers and others to not make their websites accessible to all?"

How about "We reserve the right not to do business with those we choose not to do business with without explaination?" This is about a lot more than just website accessibility- it speaks to (but probably won't come up) the constitutionality of the ADA itself.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[kickedfortrolling]

I think you're free to do business with whom you choose, unless you choose them based on race, colour, disability etc..

I always enjoy the conflict between disabled access campaigners and listed building status :)

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Planesdragon]

How about "We reserve the right not to do business with those we choose not to do business with without explaination?" This is about a lot more than just website accessibility- it speaks to (but probably won't come up) the constitutionality of the ADA itself.

Target can still decide not to let this guy -- or, even, any blind person at all -- conduct business with them. Having to make allowances for a disability does not keep you from turning people away.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Baloo Ursidae]

Target can still decide not to let this guy -- or, even, any blind person at all -- conduct business with them. Having to make allowances for a disability does not keep you from turning people away.

That might have been true prior to 1988, but since then, Target is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988 just like everyone else. If you can't write a website everybody can use, you might as well just rip out the wheelchair ramps, throw away automatic doors and lose the handicapped parking while you're at it.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[CastrTroy]

What if my store is in a 2 storey building with no elevator? Do I have to get an elevator installed to service people who are unable to use the stairs? What if I don't have any disabled customers, because I sell a product that people who are unable to climb up stairs would be unlikely to use? What if putting in an elevator would cost $10,000. Should I still required to put in an elevator on the off chance that a disabled person comes into my store? Even If there's no chance I will ever recoup my costs of putting in said elevator?

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Just Some Guy]

Hate to say it, but all of this politically correct stuff gets into freedom of association problems:

I never expected to see the day when you and I agree on a social issue. Is it cold in here? What's that pig doing in the sky?

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, those handicap parking spots are always unused.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You must have missed my big argument with TomHudson where he actually reported me to Canadian authorities for hate speech. I wonder whatever happened to that complaint?

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Planesdragon]

Sheesh. Let me spell it out for you.

Target MUST take all reasonable actions to accomodate persons with disabilities.

They MAY, even with the ADA, turn away persons who happen to have disabilities without stating a reason why. So long as they can show that the mere cost of complaince was not the issue, they are free to randomly turn away anyone and everyone that they want.

(I mean, provided that in doing so their managment fulfills their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, that is.)

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Just Some Guy]

No kidding? Got a link? I've quietly seethed at some of the things you've said over the years, but it never would have occurred to me to try to censor you. If I really get tired of someone, I add them to my foes list which automatically mods them down. That way, I don't have to listen to them but everyone else still can. Too bad Mr. Hudson didn't see fit to use his own personal volume control.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Here's his side of the story, mine can be found in my journal in entries around the same date. It all stemmed from an off-the-cuff remark I made about not seeing homosexuals as being useful to a tribal society from an evolutionary standpoint (because they typically do not produce children) and therefore, in abscence of other ethical systems and religious mandates, I'd be for the government issuing hunting permits to remove them from the genome. This is apparently what passes for hate speech in Canada- off the cuff philosophical ramblings with no real force behind them whatsoever.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Just Some Guy]

Good grief. You do rub people the wrong way, but I suppose you knew that. It just floors me, though, that he'd actually file a government complaint over flames on a message board. Well, live and learn, I guess.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It floored me enough to actually enable him to do it- since Slashdot's not a Canadian server, he needed me to forward the remarks to his Canadian mail server- I'm even kind of looking forward to them trying to sue me directly (since I run my own mail server). Since I don't really plan to EVER go to Canada again (except maybe by ocean, and even then I'd be visiting the villiage reservation of the Jowadaino in Northern British Columbia- about a day and a half's sail north of Vancouver) I don't expect his threat to "keep you out of my country" will mean anything to my life at all. The border isn't secure on their side either.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Baloo Ursidae]

Target MUST take all reasonable actions to accomodate persons with disabilities.

Sorry, but absolute XHTML 1.0 compliance IS reasonable action to accomodate persons with disabilities. This was very brutally easily avoidable on their part. Why must you defend stupidity and promote the destruction of established standards?

I mean, provided that in doing so their managment fulfills their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, that is.

No. Complying to the letter of the law fulfills their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. That means everybody (including Target) needs to make reasonable accomodations at all locations (including online) to people with disabilities (including the blind). Breaking the law screws shareholders badly. By screwing the blind, Target screws it shareholders. If you own Target stock, stand with locked knees and hold your ankles with your hands for this one...

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Baloo Ursidae]

This is apparently what passes for hate speech in Canada- off the cuff philosophical ramblings with no real force behind them whatsoever.

No, that's what passes for hate speech in the US. Canada does maintain a right to free speech, which is why you're wondering what happened to the complaint instead of what happened to freedom of speech. The US, by contrast, does not: Hence Cindy Sheenan and that senator's wife being arrested and charged with disturbing the peace because they wore t-shirts the president found personally offensive to a public speech (2006 State of the Union Address).

Get your facts straight before accusing a functional country of being as corrupt as Pakistan or 1930s Germany.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Planesdragon]

Please note: I was countering a point (raised by Marxist Hakcer 42) that the ADA is not a violation of the Constitutional freedom to associate, as the law does not (AFAIK) require anything more than taking reasonable steps to accomodate the handicapped. Target has to build wheelchair ramps and make their website effecively accessable to the blind, but they don't have to actually let either folk in wheelchair or the blind actually enter or purchase anything.

Sorry, but absolute XHTML 1.0 compliance IS reasonable action to accomodate persons with disabilities.

Even strict XHTML compliance doesn't translate to a total accomodation towards ADA. Yes, if you follow the spirit and intent you'll wind up following ADA, but that's due to the fact that "accessability" is in the same box as "standards-compliant" when it comes to "good web design."

No. Complying to the letter of the law fulfills their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

That "no" is uncalled for. IF, after compling with all legal requiremnets, Target can fulfill their fiduciary responsibility by turning away the blind, they can (will?) turn away the blind. It's almost hard to think of a situation in which turning away customers whom you've already spent money to make allowances for is ever a good idea -- maybe on an extremely busy shopping day when the crowd is so busy Target can't reasonably ensure the safety of the blind or the wheelchair-bound.

But, since you're so knowledgeable about the ADA--care to point out the applicable section that requires websites to accomodate the blind? Government websites are so bound, but it's hardly settled law that the website of even a public company needs to be accessable to the blind. (Similar to how neither newspapers nor catalogs are required to be printed in braile.)

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[kickedfortrolling]

I dont think so

in the UK, the key phrase is 'reasonable adjustments', so if ur a corner shop, it might just mean adding a ramp, wheras tesco/walmart might have to lower all of their stores by 3 feet.

i suspect its just another example of a crap law which is going to need half a dozen test cases to decide what it really means

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, homosexuals generally were culled in tribal and village societies. Even in native american ones. From a societal standpoint they are actually harmful. In small societies they merely stunt social advancement. In large societies, like the ones we have today, they can aggregate to unnatural levels and then lobby to change laws (and thus economics) to their advantage to the disadvantage of all others.

I realize you were you were just being facetious about supporting issuance of hunting permits to remove them from the genome, but there is always a grain of reality in most humor. Hunting permits might be a bit extreme or conisered inhumane. A compromise might be that in exchange for allowing civil unions (and the ensuing economic privileges) for homosexuals, permanent sterilization should be a pre-requisite.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It wasn't a US citizen filing the complaint- the US has no hate speech law. Canada, on the other hand, has Article 13 of the Hate Speech Act- which if this ever goes to court, I'm going to argue that the Hate Speech Act is actually against Article 13 of the same act.

Re:Freedom of Association maybe?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, homosexuals generally were culled in tribal and village societies. Even in native american ones. From a societal standpoint they are actually harmful. In small societies they merely stunt social advancement. In large societies, like the ones we have today, they can aggregate to unnatural levels and then lobby to change laws (and thus economics) to their advantage to the disadvantage of all others.

Yep- thus I'm against such lobbying efforts. I'm not buying the idea that 10% of all human beings, for all time, have been homosexual- nor am I buying into the idea that just because a genome exists it must be good.

I realize you were you were just being facetious about supporting issuance of hunting permits to remove them from the genome, but there is always a grain of reality in most humor. Hunting permits might be a bit extreme or conisered inhumane. A compromise might be that in exchange for allowing civil unions (and the ensuing economic privileges) for homosexuals, permanent sterilization should be a pre-requisite.

Given what passes for sex for them, that shouldn't be much of a problem.

I sort of agree but..

[kickedfortrolling]

How do you really convert a website for the visually impared? every time a picture is replaced, then its gonna make the site 1000 words longer (conservative estimate). I always do my best to include proper tags and the like, but i don't see how, for example, a graphic design company could apprioriately convey a subtle use of colour in an alt tag? or even if it would have any value.

And where does it end? do all bilboards have to be in braile?

What about a site which contains questionable material? should whitehouse.com come with proper descriptions?

Re:I sort of agree but..

[Bogtha]

every time a picture is replaced, then its gonna make the site 1000 words longer

Not at all. Most pictures on websites are for decorative purposes, in which case the alt text is blank. Most of the other images are used for navigation, in which case the alt text is one or two words, leaving a very small fraction that genuinely need descriptive text of some sort - and despite the adage, it's ludicrous to think that you need to write a thousand words for the alt text - usually ten words or so does the trick. A thousand words is not a conservative estimate in the slightest.

i don't see how, for example, a graphic design company could apprioriately convey a subtle use of colour in an alt tag?

alt is an attribute, not a tag. And almost all websites aren't graphic design companies. You seem to be thinking that an alt attribute is intended to describe an image totally, this simply isn't the case. The alt attribute is intended as a textual alternative to fulfil the same role the image plays in the website. You don't describe the image, you give an alternative to the image. So if you have, for example, a photo of a bug next to a pound coin to illustrate its size, you don't have to have an alt attribute that has a thousand words describing each minute detail of the bug, you just need alt="The bug is about the size of a pound coin.".

In your examples of graphic design and porn, there really isn't any alternative text that can fulfil the same role, so the law in most places wouldn't address such instances.

Re:I sort of agree but..

[kickedfortrolling]

It was probably a bit subtle, but "a picture paints a thousand words"..

"alt is an attribute, not a tag"

not sure that adds anything to the discussion.

My point is really that the internet is a multimedia info source, and to try and jury-rig it for people with disabilities is probably a waste, at least in economic terms.

Re:I sort of agree but..

[Tetris Ling]

Actually, it's simple. Use standards compliant XHTML and CSS. The standards are designed with accesibility in mind. A website needn't provide an identical experience to a blind person. It just has to offer access to the same content and services.

Re:I sort of agree but..

[nasch]

So, tough luck for all those vision impaired people who want the information that's available on the web? Is closed-captioning for TVs a waste too? How about jury-rigging a building so people in wheelchairs can get around? I'm sure that's FAR more expensive than accessible websites. I don't think you can defend your position ethically.

Re:I sort of agree but..

[Blakey Rat]

You seem on-the-ball, so let me ask you this question because it boggles my mind...

According to the website validator at w3.org (I believe...) it's an error to have an image with no alt attribute.

But, if you add an alt attribute, and make it a blank string (alt=""), it doesn't complain. Why!? It seems to me that if it's a graphic element with no need for an alt attribute it should be fine to leave the alt attribute off and save a few bytes of download. Is there a logical reason behind this? Or is the validator just being stupid?

Re:I sort of agree but..

[Bogtha]

It was probably a bit subtle, but "a picture paints a thousand words"..

No, I got the reference (hence "despite the adage"). It's just not relevant though. Pictures aren't generally used on the web to convey deep meaning, they are usually simple decorations and stylised text.

My point is really that the internet is a multimedia info source, and to try and jury-rig it for people with disabilities is probably a waste, at least in economic terms.

There's no jury-rigging going on. HTML is designed with accessibility in mind. It's true that the Internet is multimedia in nature, but that merely means that you have a choice of media, not that all are mandatory.

Re:I sort of agree but..

[conJunk]

alt="" is used for things like spacer.gif and your rounded corners, for things where there is no useful alternative

to use alt="" as a way to ensure that automated testing kits don't complain, and using it on all your images and whatnot, is just as wrong

the problem in your example is relying solley on automated testing for accessibility. all an automated test can do it tell you the things that are *definately* wrong, leaving lots of stuff that must be expert checked

Re:I sort of agree but..

[Bogtha]

But, if you add an alt attribute, and make it a blank string (alt=""), it doesn't complain. Why!?

The pedantic answer is that alt is defined as a required attribute in the DTD, and the validator's job is to check documents against that DTD, no matter whether that DTD makes sense or not.

However, the distinction between a missing alt attribute and an empty alt attribute is a good one to make. The absence of information is not the same as information of absence. Basically, a missing alt attribute means "I haven't supplied any alternative", and an empty alt attribute means "I have supplied an alternative, which happens to be blank".

In practical terms, a missing alt attribute generally means that the author has made no consideration for accessibility, and an empty alt attribute generally means that it's safe to ignore an image. This has various implications for alternative user-agents, although admittedly the current generation don't take advantage of these semantics as well as they could.

It seems to me that if it's a graphic element with no need for an alt attribute it should be fine to leave the alt attribute off and save a few bytes of download.

If this were the case, user-agents would have no way of distinguishing between images with no alternative and images of importance that the author has neglected to provide an alt attribute for. For many user-agents, the former is an image that should be totally ignored, but the latter is an image that could well be important.

Re:I sort of agree but..

[kickedfortrolling]

I don't think you can defend your position ethically.

i dont have to! sod em!

Re:I sort of agree but..

[kickedfortrolling]

I dont think u deserve a 'flamebait' for that..

i know my pov is seen as ethically weak, i just find the increasing trend to liberalism flies in the face of what made my country (at least) great.

Re:I sort of agree but..

[Anonymous Coward]

And where does it end? do all bilboards have to be in braile?

How many blind drivers are there on our roads?

Re:I sort of agree but..

[orderb13]

You seem to have some experience with aural browsers so can you point me towards some that are free? My group is interested in making our website blind accessible and we want to know what they sound like, but the only aural browsers we can find are $$. Do you know of any free ones, or ones that are free for developers to test with?

Re:I sort of agree but..

[sapped]

How many blind drivers are there on our roads?

Depends, in California I would rate it at about 1 out of every 3 drivers.

Re:I sort of agree but..

[Bogtha]

There's the Fangs extension for Firefox (which doesn't actually speak). IBM Homepage Reader has a free evaluation download. JAWS screen reader has a demo version (if I remember correctly it expires after half an hour of use, then you have to reboot to use it again). Safari can be used as an aural browser. EMACSpeak can be used as an aural browser (in conjunction with EMACS-W3), and was the first (to my knowledge) to support aural CSS. However, it's only really any good if you have a hardware speech synthesiser - its software support depends on an old, obsolete library that is hard or impossible to get hold of these days. Opera has an aural mode.

Actually, that list surprises me somewhat. A couple of years ago, it was just JAWS, IBM, and EMACSpeak if you could get it to work. The past couple of years have really improved matters.

It depends on why you are testing really. If you are doing it for legal reasons, you're probably okay testing in just the aural browser that's most convenient for you. But if you are doing it for a genuine attempt at compatibility, you'll need to test in JAWS, it's the most popular by far.

It's quite a pain to use demo versions when you are only trying to make your websites more compatible with them. The best thing to do if you can't justify buying them is to develop a website so that it works without images, Javascript or CSS, and then test in the aural browsers, writing down everything that doesn't work quite right. Then fix up what you need to, and keep your notes to hand the next time you develop a site (i.e. write a "style guide" for your code).

Re:I sort of agree but..

[Sleepy]

I am working on a project right now where I'm getting 508 compliance in as part of Google optomization and a CSS rewrite of a table/slice-and-dice image based site.

The point missed is subtle. This is not a legal reading, but I believe it captures the spirit:

* NOT EVERY IMAGE needs an ALT tag. For images that are spacers, you can used empty ALT or better yet a space character.
* Every image that is required to conduct a transaction, needs ALT text. Examples would be navigation images (natch). Products do NOT need a full textual description of the image -- that is what the product page text is for (hopefully the webmaster is not so lame as to publish a page directly from Photoshop!). For example, the alt text would list the make model and perhaps color of the product.

The alt text is not supposed to require a full textual description, like the finer details of some furniture photo. But you should be able to navigate your way through the site in w3m or elinks and buy an iPod (some 'known' object for example).

Re:I sort of agree but..

[surprise_audit]

I dunno the ratio in Oklahoma, but it's common for drive-through ATMs to have Braille labels... That's a little bit scary, IMHO. There's also Braille labels on the animal cages at the local zoo...

Accessibility is easy

[CRCulver]

The best way to ensure accessibility is to simply use XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS. Too often these are seen as overly-complicated technologies, but how hard is it to close a tag once you open it, and why doesn't the ability to describe visual styling in one central location instead of thousands of files seem like a hassle instead of a blessing? Get O'Reilly's HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide and just see how much sense the elegant order and semantic meaningfulness of XHTML makes over prior markup solutions. Once you have a site up in XHTML 1.0 Strict, just make sure it validates with the W3C validator, and chances are, it'll already comply with Section 508.

Re:Accessibility is easy

[Bogtha]

The best way to ensure accessibility is to simply use XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS.

There's no accessibility benefit to using XHTML 1.0 Strict. Most people are better off with HTML 4.01 Strict until browser support for XHTML is better.

Re:Accessibility is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

He knows that- he was just looking for an excuse to post an affiliate link to amazon so he could try to earn some commissions from people buying that book.

In a country without useful legislation, yes.

[Orrin Bloquy]

UK and Australia have a much smaller sense of humor about non-accessible websites. Here, the only organizations with a legal obligation are state and federal ones (I know, I design websites for one).

To stay accessible, you need to ditch table-based HTML filled with JavaScript widgets and unnecessary Flash navigation. Consequently you need to explore CSS, and guess what hamstrings adoption of CSS's more advanced features?

The other issue is the crap-awful screen reader market. JAWS ignores code designed to separate out screen readers from visual browsers, Apple's technology works only with Safari, and none of these companies have been sued for not doing their job either.

Re:In a country without useful legislation, yes.

[kickedfortrolling]

I already have to debug my sites on firefox then fiddle to get them right on IE.. am i supposed to lynx it too!?

Re:In a country without useful legislation, yes.

[MrFlannel]

I hate it when I have to debug lynx CSS errors!

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Anonymous Coward]

You have sources?
Not that I don't believe you, I just need places to cite other than "that guy on /."

Yes

[Bogtha]

Unfortunately, there's a lot of ignorance to fight. The average PHB assumes that creating a website that the blind can use is an arduous task, but this is not the case. If you build your website correctly the first time around, you essentially get accessibility for free.

If, on the other hand, your website was built by the average clueless Dreamweaver jockey, then you'll probably have to spend money retrofitting your website. But that's the clueless web developer's fault for doing it wrong in the first place. Sadly, it's in their best interests to tell the PHBs how hard it is, and the PHB's aren't qualified to know when they are being told a pack of lies.

It's only in unusual circumstances that accessibility is difficult when you include it as a requirement from the start of the project. However, typical managers go on what they've been told, and what they are told leads them to avoid accessibility unless they really need to address it. Lawsuits are a good way of getting them to address it.

Is the threat of legal action the only really effective way to get companies to create accessible (and thus standard-compliant) websites?"

Don't assume that accessibility and standards-compliance are the same thing. They are not. You can create accessible sites that don't conform to the specifications, and you can create inaccessible sites that do conform to the standards.

It's also worth pointing out that avoiding being sued isn't the sole reason to make your website accessible. It can often improve various semi-related features of your website, such as search engine rankings and usability. According to PAS 78, the accessibility guidelines published by the UK's Disability Rights Commission, Tesco and Legal & General got great returns on their investments into accessible websites.

There's more information about that last bit on Bruce Lawson's weblog. Highlight:

After a program of re-design using third party testers, they reduced their risk of legal action and found, as side-effects:

• A 30% increase in natural search-engine traffic
• "significant improvement" in Google rankings "for all target keywords"
• 75% reduction in time for page to load
• Browser-compatibility (not a single complaint since)
• Accessible to mobile devices
• Time to manage content "reduced from average of five days to 0.5 days per job"
• Savings of £200K annually on site maintenance
• 95% increase in visitors getting a life insurance quote
• 90% increase in Life insurance sales online
• 100% return on investment in less than 12 months.

Re:Yes

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Just because it is probabbly good for my site doesn't mean it is good to force me to do it, is it?

Re:Yes

[Bogtha]

At no point did I claim that it being good for you is the reason why it should be mandatory. Mandatory accessibility is intended to protect minorities, not nanny businesses.

Re:Yes

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

And I'm sure if target needed the business they'd change.
While we're at it
Ban fourms some of them must be difficult for quadrapeligics
Ban awful background colors, some people are colorblind, we can all choose our background images from the approved list.
Ban complex sites because they discriminate against people with abnormally low I.Q.

This is about as absurd as hitting smart people in the head int he name of equality.

Re:Yes

[ClamIAm]

Assertions do not an argument make.

Re:Yes

[Tweekster]

Actually the latest version of dreamweaver produces superior code to most of the experts that develop by hand. It is clean, compliant, and just plain better to use. Maybe the person didnt know what they were doing to begin with, in which case, the tool has little to do with it.

Next up

[nizo]

Smithsonian sued because they won't let blind people touch the paintings.

Where have I heard an issue like this before?

[sedyn]

Does this mean that Dmitri Sklyarov did a favour for adobe?

Ok, I'm from Tennessee...

[Donniedarkness]

Ok, what kind of technology is out there for the visually-impaired to browse the web? I'm from a very rural southern town, and I've never heard of such a thing. What can Target do to remedy this?

Re:Ok, I'm from Tennessee...

[nasch]

OK, I'll bite. How did you read this /. thread?

Re:Ok, I'm from Tennessee...

[WerewolfOfVulcan]

There are applications called screen readers that can parse out HTML files independently of the web browser and actually "render" the page as an off-screen model. They also provide hotkeys that allow blind and visually-impaired users to more easily navigate websites with the keyboard. Some build off-screen tables of the links on a page for easier navigation. For images, the alt tag is simply read to the user.

When a screen reader encounters a page that's just one big flash animation with link areas embedded and no supporting text, all the user hears is "graphic". Some users will send a complaint. Others won't bother and will just look elsewhere. They don't care what your site looks like as long as they can find the information they need.

The best practice that I've seen in designing accessible websites is to ditch all the flashy thingys and just use plain old text and graphics. Some people try to maintain two versions of the site, one with text and images and one with flashy thingys. If you use PHP or some other dynamic content generator, you can do that pretty easily and still only have one codebase to maintain.

There are 5 assistive technology centers in Tennessee (I work for one) that can provide you with more information on this topic and many others regarding accessibility for people with disabilities. The Alliance For Technology Access website has links and contact info.

Re:Ok, I'm from Tennessee...

[ClamIAm]

Either you're trolling, or you haven't discovered Google yet.

sue the screen reader companies

[AltImage]

Why are they suing Target (other than the fact that Target has the cash)? Shouldn't they be suing the screen reader companies who make such poor products that they are unable to do a passable job on complex websites? This seems like a problem that could very easily be solved by one perfect piece of screen reading software. I guess the issue is always money....if there was a huge market for screen readers, i'm sure IBM would have big R&D dollars pushing the technology. But as it is, crap readers suprisingly produce crap results. altimage

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[aardvarkjoe]

Now you want to sue people because they write software that doesn't work as well as you'd like? I can't wait for the rush of lawsuits against sourceforge projects...

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[nasch]

How is a reader supposed to read the page when half the text is in the form of images with no alt attribute?

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[AltImage]

the issue is much more than alt tags. I've had the misfortune of trying to use a screen reader before just too see what the visually impared have to go through. Its horrible. alt tags or not, i cant even imagine having to do anything complex like booking a hotel room, or a flight, or buying something. I'll completely cede the point that web developers can do more to help teh situation, but thats the best that we can do...just help teh situation. Form my experience, teh state-of-the art in screen readers is very poor. If the screen reader makers created a product that was extremely high quality and were just wanting web developers to help them with the last finishing tpouches that the software couldn't handle, i could understand. but that's not the case. They are poor solutions and the, given no other option, teh visually impared are placing teh entire burdedn on developers fixing the billions of pages that are online. Instead of fixing billions of pages, shouldnt we look at creating a seriously good screen reader first?

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[Anonymous Coward]

you misspelled some "teh"s in there.

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[SpacePunk]

Heresy! Sourceforge projects are perfect!

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[Baloo Ursidae]

Now you want to sue people because they write software that doesn't work as well as you'd like?

Yeah. Courts generally expect that you get what you pay for. Commercial products should perform better than the free alternatives they compete against. If they can't, they shouldn't charge. At best, it's false advertising to charge money for a product that is obviously inferior to the free competition. Examples off the top of my head (and by no means complete): Trillian Pro as a Jabber client (woefully incomplete and massively unstable by 2001 standards, and it's 2006), Photoshop, Microsoft Windows, any webpage editor other than Amaya, Microsoft SQL, anything made by SCO, Daikatana, Opera, the PDA jabber client iMov (it sucks, but it's still more complete than Trillian), ClarisWorks, Microsoft Office, CD-ROM encyclopedias...

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[Al Dimond]

The task of "screen reading" is very difficult for computers; it involves actually reading a visual display and extracting a flow of text. This is the type of thing that is very easy for sighted humans; actual intelligence is better than artificial intelligence and all the pages are designed to be easily read by sighted humans. In my opinion there's way too much subtlety involved for a computer program to truly do a good job.

A much easier job than making a "screen reader" is making a "markup language reader". Markup languages like HTML or XHTML should be used in such a way that the flow of text from beginning to end makes sense, and then styling and placement can be done in a styling language like CSS. This work can be done reasonably easily by a content creator, as long as the creator is a human. Dreamweaver will have a hard time deciding which of your columns in your column-layout website should actually go in the document first, especially if you use a template in a way it wasn't really intended to be used.

It's much easier for a web designer to write good markup (or create/use templates in a way that assures the generation of good markup) than it is for any programmer to solve the problem of actual screen reading. I've never actually taken a look at screen-reading software, so I don't know how bad it is. Personally, I believe it shouldn't have to be any more sophisticated than lynx. With lynx, if you get garbage markup in it often produces garbage for output. We shouldn't be seeing garbage markup when we have real standards that work for these things.

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[Isofarro]

This seems like a problem that could very easily be solved by one perfect piece of screen reading software.

The biggest problem is the classical case of Garbage In - Garbage Out. The vast majority of pages out there on the web have no logical structure, no text equivalent content to non-text content - there's no way a piece of technology can do that without an advanced form of AI.

This isn't a problem browser and assistive technology vendors can solve on their own. This isn't a problem web developers can solve on their own. Each have to pull their weight to get the job done. Web developers need to be using structured markup, and providing alternate equivalent content when content is inside a non-text format. Assistive technology vendors can then improve their tools to render your content in a better way to the tool user.

Re:sue the screen reader companies

[stevie-boy]

We shouldn't be seeing garbage markup when we have real standards that work for these things

If I'm producing markup which validates to a recognised, non-obsolete standard, why isn't it up to the assistive technology to do something sensible with it rather than me to take account of the various crapnesses in such software?

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Tetris Ling]

I disagree. I know for a fact that government websites are covered under the ADA, and I suspect that if the website provides a service, like, say, on-line shopping, then it would be required to provide accomedations, as well. And, honestly, it's not like they are asking for anything unreasonable.

And while we're at it, I think you're wrong about the courts, too. The legal system is often critical for proving points. A lot of disabilities don't get accomedated until the courts rule one way or the other on it. Plus, I can think of a couple times (e.g. Brown vs Board of Education) where the lawsuits were instrumental in enforcing civil rights.

This isn't some guy suing McDonalds for not putting "HOT!" on his coffee. These are people with real disabilities who just want equal access that is (in my opinion) provided to them under law.

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Wouldn't it just be common sense?
This is kind of like sueing The greatful dead for not providing deaf people access?
The web is textual.

Sue sue sue

[tuxisthefuture]

For those of us that use alternative browsers (because IE don't run natively on Linux, of course), can we sue companies whose sites dont show properly or are unusable in them?

Re:Sue sue sue

[WillAffleckUW]

For those of us that use alternative browsers (because IE don't run natively on Linux, of course), can we sue companies whose sites dont show properly or are unusable in them?

Why, yes. Yes, you can. Because if it were ADA-compliant, it would have text in place of images, and that's the law.

Re:Sue sue sue

[jevvim]

For those of us that use alternative browsers (because IE don't run natively on Linux, of course), can we sue companies whose sites dont show properly or are unusable in them?

I'd say the Americans with Disabilities Act would be more likely to cover those whose computers are disabled by running Windows and IE; perhaps this is why it seems like everything in creation is IE-"optimized".

Legal requirement in Ontario

[HappyHead]

In Ontario (Canada), it's legally required that web sites for government agencies, and government funded organizations follow the W3C's Accessibility Guidelines according to the Ontarians with Disibilities Act. If you're making a website for anyone in Ontario who gets funded in whole or in part by the government, and you don't follow those guidelines, you can face massive fines.

Re:Legal requirement in Ontario

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Target is a private company, with a box full of 1's and 0's sitting in a room, now some judge is telling them that some of the 1's and 0's are wrong because a third party app can't handle it.

Accessibility not just for the blind.

[babbling]

You make it sound as though accessibility for the blind is a bad thing.

Consider what websites or programs need to do in order to be usable by a blind person. First of all, they can't have clutter. They need to obey standards. (eg. W3C, for websites) They need to have a good, well-designed user interface, in general.

Notice how all of those things have very positive results for regular users, too? Blind people probably see websites much as a regular user would see them through a text-only browser like lynx. If there are problems parsing the website, that could lead to other major problems in comprehending it.

Accessibility is a good thing for all users. If a blind person can easily use a website, a person who can see can also use it easily. There are too many cluttered, difficult-to-use websites around. Accessibility is an important goal.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

They all appear to be good things, however the government saying that it MUST be that way is the equivlent to them legislating web standards, which is an awful thing.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[babbling]

I'm unconvinced either way about this. On the one hand, it is nice to have the freedom to use whatever web technology we like.

On the other hand, isn't this the same as the government specifying that people with disabilities must be catered for in real life? Why should things be any different on the internet?

Should all buildings have wheelchair ramps? To an extent, I think so, yes. Obviously it would be ridiculous for all homes to have wheelchair ramps. What about stores, shopping centres and government buildings? I think all of those buildings should have ramps. Maybe it should be the same way on the internet. Maybe any commercial or government websites should be required to make a "good faith" effort toward accessibility. Certainly government websites, at least. I currently have a complaint lodged with my state's election office because the W3C validator returns errors for their website. They've replied to me, and are currently looking into fixing it.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

It's just as bad in real life, You know that whole freedom of association things?

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[i.r.id10t]

Well, as a state institution (community college) at work we have to be ADA compliant with all our services (online classes, registration system, etc). I think *any* government site should be fully accessable to everyone (and they shouldn't be allowed .coms... they have .gov, .us, .mil, etc) and should be done with Open standards and formats.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[babbling]

Absolutely. Otherwise you have second-class citizens (if they don't support open standards), and government divisions that are not obviously part of the government. (when they start using .com)

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[Korgan]

You didn't keep your eye on the ball. Its already a law in the US that all federal websites must be accessible to all persons. Including those with some form of disability (such as blindness, hearing impairment and so on.)

http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Con tent&ID=3

Why shouldn't blind people be able to access a website just as easily as a sighted person? In the UK its as good as law that a site be accessible to persons with sight or hearing disabilities. I personally have no problem with it at all. I think its a good thing.

Sites I develop personally, I always make sure I can navigate easily within Lynx or Links. If I can't use the site easily and comprehensively using either of those then I consider the site a failure and either rework the design or restart it from scratch. The benefits far outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[Korgan]

I direct your attention to http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Con tent&ID=3 and may it help speed up the validation of your local election offices website ;-)

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[babbling]

Actually, I'm an Australian, so I was referring to the New South Wales SEO. Thanks, though! I hope someone in the US can find your information useful.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[Monkelectric]

The problem is of course the concept that blind people *CAN* use websites. I had the misfortune of helping a blind guy with his computer as a favor to a friend -- the analogy doesn't work at all. Thats the bit you are ignoring.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[zcat_NZ]

wtf? Misfortune?

I have a friend who's completely blind and uses the web a lot. Some sites are a major pain and some are completely inaccessable, but most are reasonably accessable to him using yasr and links. Very few sites now require msie and he's pretty-much given up on Windows. 98 is unstable, upgrading to XP would require a faster computer and a later version of JAWS which is mega-expensive.. We're still waiting for a useable version of gnopernicus but one of the great things about Linux is that almost everything can still be done from the command line.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its already a law in the US that all federal websites must be accessible to all persons.

This is essentially a "company policy" of the federal government. That's vastly different from saying all websites or even all commercial websites must be accessible.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, all new (private) houses are required to have wheelchair accessible downstairs toilet facilities.

Re:Accessibility not just for the blind.

[i.r.id10t]

And accessability isn't just for blindness at all. Limited hand movements (reduce mousign around and minimize typing), just plain old *very* bad eye sight, long timeouts on things for very slow movement, etc.

Re:Legal requirement in Ontario (URL Correction)

[HappyHead]

And after I post it, I find that they moved the link... the Disabilities Act is actually at http://www.cou.on.ca/content/objects/DisabilitiesA ctGuidelines.pdf. They want the people to make their sites accessible, but the government sites about those requirements are full of out-dated, broken links. Figures.

Well, it's a fact of life in the USA

[WillAffleckUW]

Just as when you get a grant from the NIH or NIA, you have to make sure it's accessible, if you want to do work, and sell commercial products over the Internets, especially Wood, you need to make sure it's ADA-compliant.

Heck, that's why the Library four blocks from my house built a twisty ramp in the single lot Park next door that occupied half the space - so people in wheelchairs could use the park.

Which means they had to get rid of all the grass on the hill.

If you don't like it, move to ... um, sorry, don't know many places that don't have similar rules in the First World.

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[AudioEfex]

I stand by my statement; the ADA does not apply to websites and videogames. Government agencies are different, as all of their services must be accessable, which makes it their responsibility only by proxy. There is absolutely nothing in the ADA about electronic access as it would apply here. I was involved in a battle over video game accessability, and the ADA does not cover electronic accessability in any way, shape, or form when it comes to things like this. For instance, someone who only has the use of one hand cannot sue Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo because it is impossible to use one of their controllers without the use of both hands, therefore blocking you from using their product. It's the same here, and the simple fact is the ADA doesn't apply.

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[AudioEfex]

Exactly. It's the charge of the companies that make the devices to access, not the websites themselves. To further your analogy, this is like some company selling you a hearing aid, you take it to a Greatful Dead concert, but you still can't make out the words clearly...so you sue the band instead of the people who made the poorly performing product.

Troll / Flamebait

[aphoenix]

I shall paraphrase the question:

Hey guys, I noticed that most people can't design or implement for shit. Do we all agree? Don't other people suck? Shouldn't the answer to this be evident?

Designing things with standards in mind is a better idea than not doing so. Any Web Developer worth the capitals (and I'm not talkin about your grandma and her website, or that high school kid that someone paid $50 to do their mom & pop store website, or anything done with Front Page or Macromedia) knows that standards-based is the way to go. The culture of ineptitude around the web is what is really holding us back from having a fully accessible virtual world for everybo...

Waitaminnit, I got sucked in and started complaining about the web! What an insidious Ask Slashdot!

Re:Troll / Flamebait

[pla]

Designing things with standards in mind is a better idea than not doing so.

I agree - But that has no relevance to the topic at hand.

Quick note of history... Before the modern web, a very similar but text-only medium existed, called "gopher". From an informational point of view, it worked just as well as the triple-dub, yet never really caught on before the web put the final nail in its coffin.

Why?
Modally-specific mediums exist. No amount of standards compliance will ever change that. The blind can't appreciate a rainbow, the deaf can't appreciate soft music lacking a strong bass. Just a fact of life for those lacking one of the normal senses (and yes, I said "normal" - PC or not, most of us can see and hear).

If you can find a way to let blind people appreciate a rainbow, by all means implement it and make a fortune in the process. If not, you have no right to deprive me of that same rainbow.

I would say that two types of websites exist (apropos to this discussion)... Those that convey written information, and (at the expense of soundling like a marketing droid) those that convey a sensory experience. The blind can use the former, and cannot use the latter. Simple as that. Roosters don't lay eggs.

Re:Troll / Flamebait

[aphoenix]

If not, you have no right to deprive me of that same rainbow.

I think you've lost the point almost entirely. Standards don't take the rainbow away from anyone - they help us describe the rainbow and make user experience better.

Designing with standards in mind does not limit multimedia experiences. Nor do standards help vision-impaired people to see a rainbow or hearing-impaired people to enjoy music more. Standards do, however, make sure that people who are impaired get a fuller experience while browsing a website. Standards mean that things work in more browsers, so that you can get the same experience at a website using Opera or Conqueror or Safari or any other browser that doesn't start with "IE" and end in "sucks".

I agree that there are websites that are mostly about sensory experiences. I rush to point out that there are multiple senses and that it is relatively easy to design with that in mind.

You've also expressed a very common opinion that pains me: "people who are disabled should just suck it up because I enjoy this." With a pretty minimal amount of work during the design phase, you can give a disabled person a rich environment and not change the user experience at all for people who aren't disabled. It's people who think that that's not possible that propagate bad design principles.

Congratulations - you're Microsoft.

Re:Troll / Flamebait

[pla]

Congratulations - you're Microsoft.

Oh, puh-lease. Call me self-centered if you want, call me a heartless bastard, call me direly lacking in empathy. But to equate me with Microsoft? Feh.


You've also expressed a very common opinion that pains me: "people who are disabled should just suck it up because I enjoy this."

When it takes no extra effort, or a truly miniscule effort, I agree that it seems nothing short of rude to not make one's work accessible. But when it requires either doubling the effort or reducing the end result for everyone, then damn straight I say "screw those who can't use this"!

I sympathize for those less fortunate than myself. I won't, however, reduce my own quality of life out of some pathologically misplaced sense of guilt over having the full complement of human senses and abilities.


Although most people might not come right out and admit it that bluntly, I suspect almost all people feel the same way. So, why do we still have unnavigable-to-those-with-disability-X websites? Do all web designers take a required course in "Evil 101"? No. Because, standards compliant or not, making a site useful to those with certain limitations doesn't always take just a small amount of extra planning - It frequently takes a herculean effort that may well dwarf the scope of the "normal" version of the project.

Put another way - Someone a few thread up mentioned that if you pay someone's nephew $50 to make a website, you get what you pay for... Well, a lot of Mom 'n Pops can only afford $50 on such a low-payback-but-potentially-critical project. That doesn't excuse a company like Target, but the same idea applies... If it cost and extra $20 or half an hour, every site would work perfectly in all browsers and for those with any conceivable disability.

Only substantive change to the lawyers' wallets

[Jim in Buffalo]

The only substantive change that will come out of this lawsuit is going to be to the lawyers' wallets. The lawyers will get a whole bunch richer, Target will get a tiny bit poorer, and the blind will still have to have people read the web to them.

Where does it stop?

[JamesonTheIrish]

In a country that has braille on drive-up ATMs, I can't say I'm surprised. Can I now sue crutchfield because the catalog I get in the mail isn't available in braille (as far as I can tell from the website)?

While I find using flash unnecessary, I certainly don't want to see using flash or any similar tool made illegal in some instances. Legislating the web in that fashion can be dangerous, and what's next? Can you get sued for missing an alt tag?

If sites had to be standards compliant, MS better get rolling on IE. Most browsers can't pass an ACID2, but there's been countless times where I've had to hack around IE quirks to get a page looking right.

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[chill]

To further your analogy, this is like some company selling you a hearing aid, you take it to a Greatful Dead concert, but you still can't make out the words clearly...so you sue the band instead of the people who made the poorly performing product.

No no no, you don't understand.

This is America. You sue the band for making you need the hearing aid in the first place AND sue the hearing aid company for a poorly performing product. If you're good, you also sue the venue and the band's promoter. If you're real good, sue the city who gave them a permit to perform in the first place! After all, their loud music damages hearing (see case #1 for the precident) and thus is a known dangerous product. :-)

If we can make websites work with all the browser,

[ivi]

...then we can surely do what it takes to make them work for people,
who happen to need a bit of accommodation.

As suggested in a recent /. article, developers just need to start
communicating with Folks with Disabilities (FWD's, a.k.a. PWD's)

It's just that easy. And... from experience... I can tell you:

It can really make you appreciate what you take for granted, ie,
finding out how life can be without sight or the ability to walk.

Mind-expanding... a bit like emerging from one of those "gotta
crawl on your belly" caves, on a spelunking trip...

Both are better than drugs, I'd suggest...

I had a friend...

[alex_guy_CA]

I roommate of mine a few years back was working for a major bureaucracy in the public transportation sector (please forgive my being coy. Normally I'd just blurt out the name, but in this case it's not my story.) She built a web page highlighting the specific work she was doing that was part of the larger corporate website. On her own initiative, she made her site compliant to the standards that blind computer users needed. Instead of being thanked for her efforts, she was ordered by her superiors to take down her page. They feared that her compliance would highlight the non-accessibility of the rest of the web site of the organization, and they were covering their asses.

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Tetris Ling]

Yes, but there are programs that read websites aloud, allowing blind people to access them. So it's more like banning deaf people from a Greatful Dead concert, even if they have hearing aids that would allow them to enjoy the show.

It is not hard to write webpages that can be read by these programs. Web standards were specifically designed to allow for it, so all you have to do is write standards compliant XHTML, which you should be doing anyways. It falls upon the creators of the web site to ensure that their page is at least usable by these sorts of programs. This is not hard or complicated, people.

In a movement without splinter removal, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The other issue is the crap-awful screen reader market. JAWS ignores code designed to separate out screen readers from visual browsers, Apple's technology works only with Safari, and none of these companies have been sued for not doing their job either."

And yet FOSS is found lacking. Looks like you all may want to remove that splinter from your eyes before criticizing the plank in others.*

*No FOSS JAWS even.

Sydney Olympics website sued

[Anonymous Coward]

SOCOG was successfully sued by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (on behalf of a blind complainant). There was coverage in Slashdot. The ruling can be read here.

In my experience (working for a large Australian telco) this has left other businesses wary, but not entirely proactive in addressing accessibility issues. I think (and hope) more successful suits are the only way to get companies to be good citizens (website accessibility-wise). I do know that all Government sites address accessibility seriously, thanks to mandates and directives from the top.

I disagree

[metamatic]

My experience is that web sites end up inaccessible because the people who create them simply don't think about the problem. As the developer on my team who actually thinks about such things, I have to remind other people why we can't have information only available coded with red vs green images in a table, why we shouldn't use JavaScript for navigational links unless we need to, why we shouldn't have organization structure only available as a big GIF org chart, and so on.

A multi-million dollar judgement against Target would get attention, and ensure that more web developers paid attention.

Re:If we can make websites work with all the brows

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid question, but how does not being able to walk change your ability to use the internet?

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Tetris Ling]

I did some quick research (read:Google search) and found this quote from a DoJ letter, circa 1996:

Covered entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well.

More recently, the DoJ filed this brief which asserts the ADA covers even buisinesses that soley exist online. Websites, particuliarly websites offering goods and services, should offer accessibility options, and it's not unreasonable to ask for them. It's not like there aren't websites out there to help you out.

So, even though videogames are not covered (an assertion I agree with), websites most certainly are.

I doubt very much Target is being sued for damages

[Tetris Ling]

sue v., sued, suing, sues.
v.tr.

1. Law.
   
   1. To petition (a court) for redress of grievances or recovery of a right.
      
   2. To institute proceedings against (a person) for redress of grievances.
      
   3. To carry (an action) through to a final decision.
      
2. To court; woo.
   
3. Obsolete. To make a petition to; appeal to; beseech.
   

Suing != Asking the court for money. Suing == Asking the court for something that is rightfully yours, such as basic civil rights (or, in some cases, money).

It doesn't seem likely that Target is being sued for damages. More likely, they are being sued to comply with the law. So the end result would be that the courts force Target to change their website.

Completely UN-informative

[oneiros27]

XHTML and CSS have nothing to do with accessibility. HTML specifies that IMG tags must have an ALT tag -- but that doesn't mean that it's an accurate replacement for the ALT tag -- lots of people used to use them for tooltips. There's nothing in the HTML specifications against having your site being a giant blinking image -- there are in 508.

I recommend against using XHTML -- too many problems w/ Internet Explorer (and even Safari will render some things slightly off what you're used to, even when it's complaint XHTML)

The best place for accessibility guidelines is W3C's WAI ... specifically for web developers, the WCAG.

Re:Completely UN-informative

[Baloo Ursidae]

I recommend against using XHTML -- too many problems w/ Internet Explorer (and even Safari will render some things slightly off what you're used to, even when it's complaint XHTML)

It's better to code to the standard than code to a single broken browser. XHTML degrades gracefully: IE users will still get to see it, though (by Microsoft's arbitrary decision) not as cleanly as they would if Microsoft took the time to read the writing on the wall (ie, published standards everyone (but them by their own arbitrary choice) uses).

If you want to lock people into IE and alienate everyone else, by all means, code for IE. If you live in the real world where more than one browser exists and the law requires you to code for accessibility if you run a business, code for the validator instead.

Re:Completely UN-informative

[Bogtha]

It's better to code to the standard than code to a single broken browser.

Don't be silly, you don't have to choose between XHTML and Internet Explorer-specific code. XHTML isn't "the standard", it's a set of specifications, and there are others to choose from. HTML 4.01 Strict or ISO-HTML are better supported than XHTML and just as much of a standard as any form of XHTML (ISO-HTML is actually a standard, HTML and XHTML are just specifications published by a vendor consortium).

The grandparent wasn't suggesting that you code for Internet Explorer, he was saying that Internet Explorer was one reason (among many) that XHTML - as opposed to other specifications such as HTML 4.01 is not the best choice.

If you live in the real world where more than one browser exists and the law requires you to code for accessibility if you run a business, code for the validator instead.

No, code to the specification and your user-agent testbed. The validator is dumb and humans are dumber, which means that it can check that code is syntactically correct, but that doesn't mean that it's what you meant to write - for example <a href=docs/foo.html>...</a> in an HTML document isn't a link pointing to 'docs/foo.html', it's a link pointing to 'docs', but a validator won't be able to detect that error. The code supported by user-agents is a subset of the code described by the specification too, so even if your code is syntactically correct and says what you mean it to say, it doesn't mean it will work in any given user-agent.

But will a judge agree?

[tepples]

I know a blind guy going into computer science who thinks any blind person who doesn't have a friend who will get em past a CAPTCHA doesn't belong on said website.

Unless the blind person lives alone and the site needs a CAPTCHA for every transaction. For instance, as of the beginning of 2006, Blogger required this for every post. Some sort of landmark case of the form American Foundation for the Blind v. (some major site) might have repercussions in the field of spam prevention.

Re:But will a judge agree?

[stry_cat]

Unless the blind person lives alone and the site needs a CAPTCHA for every transaction. For instance, as of the beginning of 2006, Blogger required this for every post. Some sort of landmark case of the form American Foundation for the Blind v. (some major site) might have repercussions in the field of spam prevention.

Let's hope this will strike down these stupid things. 9 times out of 10 I have to try the captcha more than once. Most sites don't tell you if it is case sensitive. Then there are the ones like /. where there are so many lines and extra dots it is impossible to tell some characters apart. The thing I have at the bottom of the page right now is illegable. Is that first letter an M,m,r,n,N,o,p, or is just a collection of lines that happens to look like a letter and the real first letter is that thing that looks like it could be an i or j.

DMCA

[tepples]

Looking at the captcha right now, it doesn't look that hard to defeat to me.

True, there is PWNtcha, but one who relies on PWNtcha might get sued under the DMCA for circumventing the CAPTCHA.

Re:DMCA

[jrockway]

> DMCA for circumventing the CAPTCHA

The DMCA has nothing to do with CAPTCHAs. The DMCA has to do with breaking encryption to circumvent "copyright protection", i.e. ripping DVDs so you can back them up, or transferring your iTunes music to a non-iPod player. (Conveniently, the DMCA creates artificial markets and legal monopolies, and makes it a crime to do anything about it.)

Re:DMCA

[tepples]

The DMCA has nothing to do with CAPTCHAs. The DMCA has to do with breaking encryption to circumvent "copyright protection"

A web site owner might argue that the CAPTCHA is "a technological measure that effectively controls access to" the copyrighted web site.

Re:DMCA

[jrockway]

If you can get around it, it's not "effective", now is it?

Re:DMCA

[jonbryce]

The intention is to allow access to your copyrighted materials only to humans and not to spambots, so yes I think it could work.

Think before you alt=""

[tepples]

It seems to me that if it's a graphic element with no need for an alt attribute it should be fine to leave the alt attribute off and save a few bytes of download. Is there a logical reason behind this?

Yes. Requiring the alt attribute encourages web developers to think before they leave out the alt attribute. And even for spacers and other graphic elements where you have thought about it and decided that a lack of text should replace the image, once you use gzip compression, a tag that uses <img alt="" src= isn't significantly bigger than one that uses <img src=.

XHTML and IE 6?

[tepples]

Use standards compliant XHTML and CSS.

I agree about the use of standards, but "the nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" (Andrew S. Tanenbaum). What is the advantage of XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01 or HTML 5.0 if you have customers who use Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 SP2 or earlier? XHTML 1.0 served as text/html is treated as tag soup, and XHTML 1.0 served as application/xhtml+xml to IE is a parse tree.

What the World Wide Web is

[tepples]

My point is really that the internet is a multimedia info source

No. The Internet is a network, and accessibility is serious business. Gopher and World Wide Web are an information source period. They need not use multimedia.

Re:What the World Wide Web is

[kickedfortrolling]

Ok, if its a network, make it like the one in my office, where basically im the only one who has a clue whats going on, not through lack of accessability, but because thats my job and no-one else can be arsed.

i think the internet is more than just a network, it means the stuff that its used for aswell

Re:What the World Wide Web is

[tepples]

i think the internet is more than just a network, it means the stuff that its used for aswell

World Wide Web is an application that runs on the Internet. When you said "the internet is a multimedia info source", you meant "the World Wide Web is a multimedia info source".

But that's beside the point. Tim Berners-Lee intended the World Wide Web as an information source, full stop. It has nothing to do necessarily with multimedia.

Re:What the World Wide Web is

[kickedfortrolling]

A short tale of things which didnt turn out how people planned:

The quest to make the worlds strongest glue leads to post it notes,

Alfred nobel was just looking for a new way to mine

Teflon was created to protect space shuttles

the world will only have use for about 10 computers

Iraq has wmd's and can strike in 40 minutes

We'll never have another war like that

coke, the health drink

we'll never have another war like that

World Wide Web is an application that runs on the Internet. When you said "the internet is a multimedia info source", you meant "the World Wide Web is a multimedia info source".

o..k.. i cant be sure, time is a transcient thing, but i reckon i meant exactly what i said.

this has become a bit flame-ful and of topic, so i quit..

Strict vs. Transitional and <li value="13">

[tepples]

The best way to ensure accessibility is to simply use XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS.

Given IE's inability to display documents sent as application/xhtml+xml, what is the advantage of XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.01? And given the mistaken deprecation of the value attribute of the li element in HTML 4.01 (and the subsequent removal from Strict), what is the advantage of Strict over Transitional if you abstain from all deprecated elements and attributes with the exception of li value?

make sure it validates with the W3C validator, and chances are, it'll already comply with Section 508.

Any page that uses a visual CAPTCHA with alt="security image; blind user access prohibited" will conform to XHTML but not the WAI guidelines. And if all images must have a reasonable replacement in the alt attribute, you can't do a visual CAPTCHA, so how do you distinguish between blind human beings and spambots?

NYSE:TGT

[tepples]

Target is a private company

What is NYSE:TGT, then? Target is not privately held.

Re:NYSE:TGT

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Target is still private sector, instead of public sector.

sure

[Anonymous Coward]

why yes...follow the case, and when the blind guy wins, which he will, it's a slam dunk despite the illogical naysayers on this thread, throw the news in your bosses face and tell them he will get sued and lose if he keeps using dreamweaver that creates illegal code, which is what it will be if you are selling stuff in a US based website and it isn't accessible. If it makes inacccesible, it is bad. Stockholders won't like that "bad" stuff.

In the meantime, just knock out some blank templates (using your own good code) for them, tell them all they have to do is fill in the blanks in an "emergency" then.

Re:I had a friend... & knowingly violating the

[poopie]

she made her site compliant to the standards that blind computer users needed. Instead of being thanked for her efforts, she was ordered by her superiors to take down her page. They feared that her compliance would highlight the non-accessibility of the rest of the web site of the organization

The penalties for crimes are different depending on whether the crime was committed knowingly or not.

Therefore, your friend's website, while being done in best intentions brought into focus the fact that the rest of that company's web site *MIGHT NOT* be compliant (and should be).

I'm guessing that courts would look at the issue of people knowingly keeping a website inaccessible different than someone accused of having an inaccessible website.

ADA Website Compliance = Section 508

[jonathan_lampe]

In the United States, ADA website compliance means Section 508.

See:
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/

How do I know? Before the U.S. Post Office looked at our web-based secure file transfer and messaging product (MOVEit DMZ), they required us to pass this requirement.

You can see a short version of our "yes, we comply" statement online here:
https://support.standardnetworks.com/moveit/doc/en /moveitdmz_generalinformation_federalregs_ada.htm

Among the interesting bits: to meet full compliance we added an option that allows our administrators to add a "skip repetative navigation" link to the top of the page; this specifically allows audio readers to skip directly to the unique content on the page.

Re:ADA Website Compliance = Section 508

[K8Fan]

Among the interesting bits: to meet full compliance we added an option that allows our administrators to add a "skip repetative navigation" link to the top of the page; this specifically allows audio readers to skip directly to the unique content on the page.

Man, I wish IMDB had a "skip repetative navigation" link! I have a Treo 600 and Sprint's slow-ass Vision service and the only reason I finally got a cell was to look up movie information. IMDB, and most web sites, are painfully slow and force me to get the same menu information over and over again while trying to get the information I actually want.

Interstate commerce

[tepples]

Target engages in interstate commerce and thus can be regulated by the Congress.

Re:Interstate commerce

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Can is not the same as should.

Re:Interstate commerce

[tepples]

Can is not the same as should.

Can == should unless you can afford lobbyists to convince legislators of should not.

But seriously, like other allegedly socialistic measures, prohibiting discrimination is intended to fight crime by preventing the disadvantaged from becoming even more impoverished and more likely to commit crime.

Re:Strict vs. Transitional and

[CRCulver]

See the e-mail method available on this very site's user registration system for a CAPTCHA method that respects accessiblity.

Re:Strict vs. Transitional and

[tepples]

See the e-mail method available on this very site's user registration system for a CAPTCHA method that respects accessiblity.

What prevents a bot from using this method or just from DOSsing the address with a spam flood?

Re:Strict vs. Transitional and

[Matilda the Hun]

Alright, you sign up for a new account with that system, and see how long it takes for someone to get back to you. If ever.

Ah, so "no blacks allowed" is okay with you?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Fine, put it in your store window. Lets see how long you last.

Rights got to be balanced. It is what makes real life so difficult. How do you balance the right of target to make its website the way they like it with some peoples rights to live a normal live despite a physical disability.

My freedom to form a club of people I like is offset by the rights of other people to join clubs they wish. So whites only golf clubs are a no-no.

It all depends what you consider more important. The freedom of people with bad eye sight or the freedom of website designers.

Off course as a programmer I personnally think that designers should have NO rights but that is just me.

Re:Ah, so "no blacks allowed" is okay with you?

[Just Some Guy]

My freedom to form a club of people I like is offset by the rights of other people to join clubs they wish. So whites only golf clubs are a no-no.

And yet you can't join the Knights of Columbus without being a Catholic, the Freemasons if you're an atheist, or Mensa without having a certain IQ. Clubs based on accidents of birth or upbringing aren't nearly as endangered as you think.

It all depends what you consider more important. The freedom of people with bad eye sight or the freedom of website designers.

What about the right of the designers to do as they see fit with their own property? If I run Google Ads on my site, am I bound under the ADA (since I'm receiving income from the site)? What if I have a PayPal donation link, in which case a visitor could pretty strongly argue that they're directly paying to access my content?

I categorically support the rights of the blind and others with disabilities to have full access to government resources. There are plenty of sticking points when you extend that to private property, though.

Re:Ah, so "no blacks allowed" is okay with you?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Fine, put it in your store window. Lets see how long you last.

But that's exactly my point- lawsuits are unneccessary as long as the lost business does the same job.

Rights got to be balanced. It is what makes real life so difficult. How do you balance the right of target to make its website the way they like it with some peoples rights to live a normal live despite a physical disability.

How about relative harm?

My freedom to form a club of people I like is offset by the rights of other people to join clubs they wish. So whites only golf clubs are a no-no.

Also a stupid idea- why not just create a blacks only golf club? Or a blue people only golf club?

It all depends what you consider more important. The freedom of people with bad eye sight or the freedom of website designers.

How about the freedom to be left alone without invading other people's space?

Off course as a programmer I personnally think that designers should have NO rights but that is just me.

I'm a programmer too- and while I think it's stupid to cut off a significant segment of your potential customer base, stupidity is the right of every business and person in the country. Try a BOYCOTT instead of a LAWSUIT.

Most pictures do NOT say a thousand words

[SmallFurryCreature]

I pretty much doubt the blind would even care very much about the kind of pictures that speak a thousand words. I at least haven't seen lenghty and detailed descriptions of famous works of art in museums so blind people can enjoy them.

So your image gallery of ehm nature shots is save. No need to describe each nudy shot in details in the alt attribute.

However for most of the images on a normal site this does not apply. Take for instance images serving as navigation links. The oh so cool animatited letter leading to the email link could easily have an alt value of "email" and then it would be clear to all.

Same with menu links. Just have the alt say what ever you have rendered in the image.

Yes there are going to be difficulties like what the hell do you do with product images. How exactly do you describe a piece of clothing. Or worse a motherboard. Well, you don't need to. If your normal product description is good enough then all you need to put in the alt value is that this is an image of the product.

Sure many motherboard descriptions are so fucking poor you need to study the image to learn what exactly is on the board but is that a problem just for the blind?

Frankly it isn't so hard to make a website that the blind can use. This complaint is about navigation only. Not that target doesn't properly describe its furniture.

The only problem in doing proper navigation is that you first got to shoot the managers and the designers. Management just seems to insist on using pointless flash for essential site elements.

The designers should be shot just because. Why the fuck does CSS not have constants forcing me to do the search and replace for minute color changes because designers don't understand complex functions like that?

Private vs. Public

[madsenj37]

Any private organization should be able to whatever they want, or not do whatever they want, as far as accessibility to customers go. As for government, they have to be accessible to all and by all.

Sue the Lawyers!!!

[woolio]

I bet most lawyer's websites are not designed for the blind either...

And by doing so, the blind are not able to access legal info/services at the same level as those with sight... Thus, they are being disadvantaged because the lawyer was negligent in hiring a good webmaster. It would be like a law office without a wheelchair ramp for the handicapped....

Well, it's a fiction of life in the USA

[StupidKatz]

The ADA applies to physical premises only. Web sites which need to comply with section 508 are government sites *only*. No law mandates that private entities, such as Target, needs to provide blind people with access to its web sites. This lawsuit is a civil suit - the same type which would be filed if someone didn't want Target using the color red in its logo.

Re:Well, it's a fiction of life in the USA

[WillAffleckUW]

well, it's a requirement for federal contracts for data presented on websites, so if your business has even one federal contract ...

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[StupidKatz]

"Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well."
 
... accessible means such as a storefront with wheelchair ramps, or a telephone number to call, or an address to write to for a printed catalog. Just because they have to offer "accessible means" doesn't mean they have to magically allow everyone to use the same venue.

Re: proper descriptions

[Anonymous Coward]

> should whitehouse.com come with proper descriptions?

I think you might have made a typo here! Shouldn't that be whitehouse.gov??

/me ducks

Breaking News!

[thelonestranger]

People Without Arms Sue Entire Computer Industry.

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it just be common sense?
This is kind of like sueing The greatful dead for not providing deaf people access?
The web is textual.

That's really a dumb thing to say. The web consists of mark-up and content. That content is typically text-encoded, because that's the way we humans like to do things. But, that should have no bearing on how someone wants to browse that content.

This thread reflects really poorly on the Slashdot community. You folks can't lift your techno-Libertarian heads out of your cubicles long enough to see that the Web is too valuable a resource to be restricted to the sighted.

Rights?

[kenp2002]

I refuse to justify this absurd behavior with an actual response beyond, "Get a fucking life you sue-happy son of a bitch."

Re:Rights?

[paradox00]

First of all, I don't like your implication that the blind such as my self do not have the same rights as you. As for the lawsuit I know the parties involved personally, this was the last step in an ongoing problem and the lack of communication on the part of target.com. As a blind web user I'm not asking for you to totally change every aspect of your site and never use flash. All that we (the National Federation of the blind) are asking is for sites such as target to make the primary function of the site accessible.
        I have been following this thread and I want to thank the people who understand that accessibility is something that if done right the first time is not that hard to implement. For the people who write derogatory posts such as this, before you send it off to the world to read maybe you should think about what you're saying. Yes the blind use the internet to do everything from online shopping to using the metro bus trip planner. If you design websites for a living feel free to ask questions, the NFB would be more than happy to give you feedback on what works and what does not, before suit is ever filed.

There was already a case about this

[Gulthek]

I wonder how this case is going to deal with existing ruling by U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz in the 2002 case Access Now and Robert Gumson v. Southwest Airlines Co. (pdf) stating that Southwest did not have to redesign its website to be more accessible to the blind.

The 11 Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in 2004.

I have to say that I'm very much against these rulings. Making websites accessible to the blind is trivial if the website is designed properly in the first place. It's only difficult if you mash the damn thing up with bad flash and poorly coded javascript.

XHTML <> HTML

[oneiros27]

I never said code for a specific browser -- I said don't use XHTML. I'm a supporter of valid code, and the Any Browser Campaign, but I don't currently support XHTML, because there is better cross platform support for HTML4 than there is for XHTML 1, because XHTML is not directly compatable with HTML

You can write pages that will degrade gracefully under both XHTML and HTML -- but you can't write a valid XHTML page that will parse cleanly in IE, XHTML is not backwards compatable with HTML, due to the need of an XML declaration before the HTML doctype.

To get XHTML to work in browsers that don't directly support XHTML, you'll have to serve it as text/html, which can then cause problems which correctly support XHTML. more details at wikipedia.

You get better overall support in browsers by coding to HTML4.01 -- there are few advantages to the user to using XHTML 1.0 (it's easier on the browser code, that's about it). That's not true with XHTML 2, which offers better alternative text for images and objects, as well as more easily arranged sections and dramatically updated Web Forms, but I have no idea when we'll get browser support for it. (hell, we don't even have good support for CSS2, much less CSS3 in most browsers)

Paying the friend?

[tepples]

CAPTCHA is easy to get through - just have a friend read it to you

So for a web site that requires a CAPTCHA for every transaction, how do you plan to compensate the friend for his or her time and travel expenses to and from your residence?

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[tepples]

[I claim that] accessible means such as a storefront with wheelchair ramps, or a telephone number to call, or an address to write to for a printed catalog [are an acceptable substitute for an inaccessible web site.]

What about some click-and-mortar businesses that offer Internet-only products or Internet-only discounts?

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

[tepples]

If I'm producing markup which validates to a recognised, non-obsolete standard

For one thing, http://www.target.com/ most emphatically does not validate as HTML, with an error count well into three figures. For another, if your markup follows the recognized, non-obsolete Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative division of W3C, then conforming aural browsers will have little or no problem with it. (Unfortunately, unlike the HTML 4 specification, WCAG cannot be completely boiled down to a DTD for use in automatic validation. A human being has to evaluate pages for conformance.)

the only place where speech readability required

[Zantetsuken]

is on documents on government servers, because as with tfa the visually impaired might be using screen readers that will only really work if the page is standards compliant (for the most part) - its called ADA standards or something like that I think, and for as much as I care, it means that I couldnt make my site in kick ass Flash (its a college workstudy thing for a city/community sponsored organization for getting old people to socialize and its on the college server, which is government supported, and we are governed by a very picky board which you never know what they will get picky about, just might be accessablity)

"Effective" in 17 USC 1201

[tepples]

If you can get around it, it's not "effective", now is it?

Your interpretation of "effective" does not match the interpretation of "effective" seen in Universal v. Reimerdes and other landmark DMCA cases. Judges have interpreted "effective" merely as "having the effect".

Not quite correct.

[Orrin Bloquy]

According to the accessibility czar here, JAWS is largely a chunk of Visual BASIC which wedges itself into Windows' screen display routines, about as elegant as Sidekick using TSR keyboard interrupts to coexist with DOS. Its authors are praying Microsoft will buy them out and rewrite the code into the OS for them. If Windows was open enough as an architecture to make writing a general purpose screen reader easy, JAWS would handle non-Microsoft apps just as well as MS apps, and it pretty clearly doesn't.

You want FOSS accessibility for browsers? FireVOX extension.
https://webspace.utexas.edu/chencl1/clc-4-tts/

I've run it successfully on Windows XP, OS X Tiger, and Debian Sarge. Under Windows you can even choose which speech engine to use; the one bundled with FireVOX or the one already installed on your PC.

Give me an alternative

[tepples]

If you sincerely believe that the World Wide Web is and should be a multimedia information source, then what do you suggest that blind people use as an alternative to your conception of the World Wide Web? Not all countries' laws allow outright discrimination against blind people.

Damn Reavers

[tbo]

if anyone knows how to force the 'Reaver to leave my code alone, could you reply, please?

I hate those damn Reavers, too. Upgraded Zerglings are quite effective in getting rid of them, as are Dark Templar if they don't have an Observer in the area.

Perhaps I've been playing too much Starcraft.

Follow-Up: target.com validator results

[geekwithsoul]

For all those who might be interested, check out how the Target website does on some common standards and accessibility tools:

• HTML Validation
• CSS Validation
• . . . and I'd list the URLs for WAI and Section 508 tests, but the validator refuses to do the Target site because of too many requests

And of course, check out the source code . . . it's pretty horrendous.

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say you're still wrong. From www.ada.gov
Poorly designed websites can create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities, just as poorly designed buildings prevent some from entering. Designers may not realize how simple features built into a web page will assist someone who, for instance, cannot see a computer monitor or use a mouse.

One example is a photo with no text description - as some blind people can't make out the photo but can read the text. That is no fault of the software company, but of the website designer.

Re:I doubt very much Target is being sued for dama

[Jim in Buffalo]

So, the lawyers get paid... how?

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Section 508 of the ADA DOES apply to websites.

Bobby from Watchfire: Accessibility checker

[proggoddess]

Back in college, I worked as a student assistant for the Occupational Therapy dept. at the University at Buffalo. I had to make sure the department's site was handicapped accessible. We used Bobby, which was free back then. It helped catch a lot of easy-to-fix errors. I see that the product is still around, but now they charge for it:

http://www.watchfire.com/products/desktop/accessib ilitytesting/default.aspx

Re:ADA Does Not Apply to Websites and Videogames..

[Gertlex]

I've yet to hear of a reasonably sized and priced hearing aid that works just as excellently as does the natural ear. Granted, I don't know fully the differences between natural and aid-assisted hearing, as I was born with a need for the later. If you're not implying that you think hearing aids are available that are perfect, ignore me.