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:About Time!

[Phil John]

It's a common misonception that flash ins't accessible, the latest versions are very much so. JK Rowlings new site is meant to be a good example of this.

Re:About Time!

[theyCallMeGrim]

Flash is fundamentally inaccessible given that you MUST have the plug-in to get the content. If you have the plug-in, then Flash can be quite accessible. If you don't, then it's absolutely inaccessible. That's why JK Rowling's site has text-only alternatives.

Re:About Time!

[muellerr1]

Text-only alternatives aren't accessible unless you have a computer. Come on, just because you need a free plugin doesn't make it inaccessible. JK Rowling's site uses Flash in such a way that the screen readers can actually read the flash content.