Should Online Stores Be Subject To ADA?

prostoalex writes, "HTML tutorials usually mention alt tags for images and noscript tags as something optional that a Web designer should add to a site for the crawlers and users browsing with graphics or JavaScript turned off. However, a recent lawsuit against Target by the National Federation of the Blind accuses the retailer of not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since Target's online store is unbrowsable with a screen reader, the nation's 200,000 blind people who go online cannot become paying customers, the NFB contends. From the article: 'In denying Target's motion to dismiss the suit two months ago, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel... held that the law's accessibility requirements applied to all services offered by a place of public accommodation. Since Target's physical stores are places of public accommodation, the ruling said, its online store must also be accessible or the company must offer equally effective alternatives.' Does the judge's name ring a bell? Yes, it's the same Marilyn Hall Patel who handled the RIAA's case against Napster in 2001." Web builders and tools may need to start brushing up on the Web Accessibility Initiative.

Comments

Re:ADA is bad law

[b0s0z0ku]

Yes, but this is browsing the web, not a physical activity.

Using the phone is also a normal activity. Should be require every mom-and-pop store and restaurant to buy a TDD (Teletype Device for the Deaf) so that deaf people can call them on the phone and place orders? Disabled people have to allow for some loss in "functionality" compared to normally abled people. Deal with it and move on.

-b.

My wife is a psychologist ...

[Culture]

... no, I really have a wife. Anyway, she is a psychologist, and she got sued under ADA, and now has to supply sign language interpreters for free to deaf clients, and is not allow to charge more for these clients. She loses money on these clients as the interpreter cost more than the client pays. As this spread through the deaf community, it was decided she was the deaf psychologist of choice since no one else in the area had been sued yet (she was the first), so no one else would provide free interpreters. As a result, she no longer offers counselling services in this area (Long story but the lawsuit only applied to counselling services in a specific area of counselling). I hate these people (not all deaf people, just the stupid ones who feel it is their job the punish the hearing population because they can).