Slashdot Mirror
Web Accessibility Gets a Boost In California Court
The Register is reporting on developments in a California court case pitting blind users against the retailer Target over the lack of accessibility of Target.com. (We discussed the matter on two occasions last year.) The case is being brought under a federal statute, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and two California laws that are somewhat broader. Even though Target has made improvements to the site since losing the first phase in court, the judge has just ruled that the case is eligible for class-action status. The end result could be mandated accessibility for for all Web sites reachable by visually impaired users in California.
The article specifically mentions that Alt attributes in IMG tags were not present (that I can understand) but what are the "and headings are missing that are needed for navigation"? Dis the designers not use the standard H1 - H6 Tags?
Also, the shortcut keys that didn't work seem to be more of a browser-related config issue than anything, so I don't see how Target could be held responsible.
To me, a greater problem is those websites that still use 2-5 layer nested tables for layout (even after all these years), despite the fact that that manner of design is not kind to screenreader software at all.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
The Register is reporting on developments in a California court case pitting blind users against the retailer Target over the lack of accessibility of Target.com.
That's they get for using a WYSIWYG editor to make their website.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Not only is the layout wildly different from site to site, but also the semantics. And sometimes the access to some services aren't in a menu at all but hidden on a specific page that you don't really think it would be.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I can't wait for a lawsuit against sites that require Internet Explorer to work correctly. Web access should be available to all browsers.
This isn't going to be a popular opinion at all.
Why is it my job (metaphorically speaking) to ensure those who are disabled can use my facilities? Why isn't it their job to somehow adapt? Is it my fault someone else can't see, hear, walk, or think clearly? Frankly, too bad on them. You got a shitty roll of the dice. Life sucks.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Is it because they're an easy Target?
In a true Slashdot fashion I didn't RTFA, but I did look at the Target website. To me it does seem like a run-of-the-mill e-commerce type of website. Granted, there's too much flash for my taste, but the question remains; why Target?
Are they that easy for the lawyers to aim at?
Seriously though, as someone that's not physically handicapped in any way, I don't see what's so bad about this site. Is it just to set a precedent for similar sites?
How long until Target figures out that very few people actually use their website compared to the trouble of all these lawsuits. As has been mentioned by other posters, it's quite possibly a browser config and interpretation issue. So, these lawsuits might never stop, so why not just block all access from these IP ranges?
There are incidences of mass lawsuits invoking the disabilities act even against stores which comply with it. It's not something that you can feel happy defending against and odds are that you're missing at least something somewhere, as such, it's not entirely unprofitable for the people doing it. It's not that I'm saying Target should be excluded from following guidelines, their website seems pretty unusable if you're disabled, but I am reminded by a lawsuit I'd heard about previously "hearing impaired sue Quantas for unusable phone booking system". Considering it would be infinitely easier to order from stores which ARE accessible, this screams of a shameless cash grab.
How do you kill that which has no life?
I mean, aren't all online retailers doing exactly the same thing? Selling stuff. You have a database of stuff. Different fields, etc... you just plop them in a template. So you have a regular website template and one for disability. Is that so hard? The only problem is, that people don't think about these things upfront and it leads to bad design.
Which makes me think, do they have standards documents for creating a disability accessible website? What all is involved? And what about amazon's "look inside" function? There is no way a text to speech algorithm can read those books because they are images.
I wonder what this will mean to all those Flash only and ActiveX Heavy sites out there that look like garbage on the screen will be legally mandated to clean the page up?
Conversely, could this be used to push some Ultra-proprietary Screen reader technology only Windows Supports by adding elements that would make FireFox and Konqueror unusable?
What will the outcome be? Is this the sum of all fears?
I have seen many web sites with too small text and have to hit Ctrl-+ to increase the font size. Even if the font size is set large on my end. Too many web site are hard coding the font size and nearly all linux distros follow the DPI that is returned by the plug and play monitor/LCD. So setting the point size to 8 on a 120 DPI monitor will make it unreadable. And for those hard of sight, totally unreadable.
Blindness is not a disability, it is a superpower!
I should totally be made a (highly-paid) part of their blood-sucking legal team.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
http://pornfortheblind.org/ is doing this with pornography sample clips already, the basic idea should apply to any site.
I'm getting more and more tired of both the liberals and the neo/publicans and all their fucking bullshit. What ever happened to that free market shit we were fed along with the 'land of the free' garbage? If you don't like something vote with your wallet. Don't fucking sue everything that makes your life a little more difficult. No-one *has* to use Target. No-one has to use a website they don't like. I think it's fucking lazy and shows this stupid sense of entitlement we seem to feel. Instead of supporting something better we try to coerce it into being the way we'd like. How fucked up is that? That's the kind of shit you do with your government, not your fucking lawn-chair supplier. Meanwhile we stew in a broth of litigious shit as our real freedoms are sold right out from under us.
Quack, quack.
Pile on enough laws and you can destroy the web for everyone. It's not as resilient as you may think.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
whos next? are they going to sue automobile manufacturers because they dont make automobiles with accessibility for blind drivers?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
The term you are looking for is "vision impaired", which means: people who have a lack of vision (blind) or have poor vision. The term "visually impaired" means: ugly.
Well, I guess I'll just have to file a class action against MySpace under the Americans With Retinas Act.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Armless people are suing casinos because the slot machines aren't 'accessible' to them.
http://xkcd.com/386/
The end result could be mandated accessibility for for all Web sites reachable by visually impaired users in California.
Or it could begin a wave of website owners deciding "this shit isn't worth it", and they either turn off their site entirely or at least block known California IP ranges.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
You might not like the way I'm expressing my opinion, but it's an opinion. That's something distinctly different then trolling and using the moderation system to quell opinion in contrast to that of your own is, aside from an idiotic form of censorship, anti-dialog. And as such instead of conversation you encourage this mass enfeebling, where dialog is constantly shifted and filtered to reflect your own ideals. The world regurgitated to you. Keep up the good work.
Quack, quack.
This is all about being able to access Targets and any other companies public portal without any discrimination. If Target and many other public websites simple stuck to web standards instead of using broken flashy bouncing beach ball proprietary rubbish this whole issue would not have turned into the mess it is today. Too many idiots are opening graphical web development tools and putting together sites that are based on code that to put is simple is total shite.
"They probably use IMGs instead of H1-H6 tags, either because they are using a non-standard font, or some design in the headings. There are a few workarounds for this. You can use H1-6 in your markup, and replace it with images in the CSS (assigning an ID to each H1-6.)"
Actually, it is easier then that. Just simply put the IMG tag inside of a H1-H6 tag and make sure the ALT option has text. If the image is not used, the ALT text will show up in the H1-H6 font and style. Also screen readers and site indexers can still identify the H1-H6 without a problem. Coding a decent quality page that is accessible to the blind is not that difficult. You just can't do it with a clueless "web dork" (term coined by a former co-worker) and a WYSIWYG editor. Or a desktop publishing person who fills the page with images or Flash.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
If blind people aren't aroused by a pr0N website because they can't see the pictures but only get a textual description, then can they sue the website because they aren't being equally treated to an arousal that non-blind people enjoy? In other words, "separate and non-equal", in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Consitution (i.e. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", wherein pr0n is a "privilege"....).
Too many frickin' lawsuits in this country already...
Isn't it? I know I've read and seen that several places over the years.
So did they go after Target.com even though Amazon.com has the same limitations because Target also has brick & mortar stores and is easier to sue (probably deeper pockets too).
So what about the small business owner that only sells a few items online and uses paypal.com to checkout? Do they have to make sure the don't use image maps and such?
Presumably, people without flash (e.g. visually impaired people using Lynx) will not find the promotions and will end paying more.
And I'm not going to make a single "because it's morally right' argument.
Free enterprise works pretty well - when everyone decides to spend money in whichever way satisfies their greedy nature, resources get allocated fairly efficiently.
But this is not always the case. For example, if you run a manufacturing business that produces toxic chemical waste, depending on how greedy your nature is, you may choose to just dump your waste in the nearest river. While this works well for you in the short run, it works well for no one in the long run if all businesses operate that way because soon everything would be too polluted to use. So we have government regulations that say 'Hey, if you make waste, you have to pay to dispose of it properly', and then the costs of that get passed on to the consumers of the product that caused the generation of the waste in the first place.
Did you see how that worked? In this case, government regulation ENHANCES the proper allocation of resources, by making sure the entire costs of manufacturing a product is borne by those who use the product.
Legally mandated disability access works in a similar manner. For any given business, the direct cost to them of maintaining access for the disabled may not balance out just not accepting that business in the first place. But, if we don't require that all businesses make reasonable efforts to be accessible to the disabled, then very soon no businesses would be accessible to the disabled. And that's a problem for everyone - because now instead of having disabled people, who through reasonable accommodations made to them are independent productive members of society, we now have disabled people who are essentially locked up in their homes, unable to participate and contribute to society, where we then have to either divert our tax dollars to support them, or let them starve to death (or in the very least, let them out on the street to beg).
Secondary to that, disability access is a bit like health insurance. While most of us are not disabled CURRENTLY, it's quite possible something might happen where we become disabled in the future. An accident, a disease, or shit, we could just get old, and not be able to walk or see as well as we used to. So, as a society, by deciding to make reasonable accommodation for the disabled, we also ensure that in the event we ourselves become disabled in the future, access is available to us. We may not ever need it, but if we do, we'll be glad we have it.
Another point to note here is that web accessibility is NOT just about seeing-eye-dog-blind people. Some people can't see very well just because they get old and lose their vision. That's probably not as big a deal now because most older Americans don't use computers anyway, but in 20-30 years, it'll be quite important as the internet generation starts to lose their eyesight.
paintball
If I wish to sell software, music, and films that I copied from the internet, why is this business decision anybody else's business? Answer: Just because the law says I cannot do this.
Regulating commerce is well within the capacity of congress and the states, the constitution says so.
Pile on enough laws and you can destroy the web for everyone.
Actually what's destroying the web are all the sites that demand flash and/or activex.
What a very well thought-out post, kudos and thanks for the read!
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
Honestly (and I know I'm gonna be modded down for this, but let's face it, half of us think this and don't dare say it) I hate these kinds of laws and court cases.
So you have a disability. Sorry for you. Why, exactly, is this my problem? If I want my shop to be accessible (or, in my case, my online game), then I'll invest whatever amount of time and effort it's worth to me. If I don't, then you can shop somewhere else.
Regulations like these are ok when it comes to essential and public services, such as public transport or administration buildings (where, after all, you have to go personally to collect your new passport, file your papers, or whatever).
Zero support from me for regulations of this kind on private business. Even though the lobby of disabled organisations (most of whom, interestingly, are not disabled themselves, figure that) tries to create the impression, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "erecting barriers". Sorry, those four steps on the entrance of my 14th century building aren't something I put there with the purpose of keeping wheelchair users out, you know? They just happened to be there and have been there since before the wheelchair was invented (17th century, btw).
Same with my website. If your browser can't display my website in a way that makes it easy for you to use it, that isn't my fault. It's not as if I'd be writing it specifically in-accessible for you. If you can't read my page, then again, you are free to go somewhere else, there's a couple billion other pages online. And again, if you have a specific problem, you can mail me and maybe I care and change (note: "change", not "fix", it wasn't broken!) the site for you. Actually, I do care and I probably will, if you can tell me or I can find out easily what exactly needs changed. But I very much dislike being told that I have to do it.
Ooops, sorry if that turned into a rant.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
For all of you saying that businesses shouldn't be required to provide service to the vision impaired, I have one thing to say:
Pray that you never lose your sight.
What really burns me is that it actually takes effort to make a site inaccessible. The rules of good style (and taste) are often the same rules to make the site accessible. There have even been validation tools for this for a very long time. I actually pointed our marketing guy at one of these to stop him committing crimes against style on the company website.
Well written, sir or madam.
The standards for "web accessibility" also help stabilize the web. Simple text web pages, or ones with well defined ALT tags, remain legible in newer and older browsers. They also make the content more easily searchable and editable by the authors. It's not as "flashy", a pun I choose deliberately. But it usually saves server resources, client resources, and bandwidth to keep the page content centric rather than focusing on the latest "Web 2.0" exciting graphical cuteness, even if the latter makes for more exciting demos when getting the work approved.
Slashdot itself is a very good example of this. The simple layout and content keeps the site focused on the material. The advertising is unobtrusive, and it's easy to get to the material you want even if you are using a truly antique browser, even a text-only one.
these are the same clowns that went state-to-state trying to stop open source solutions like OpenOffice. Turns out they like the commercial ecosystem with M$ because it gives them a one-stop shop for bullying their assistive technologies.
Ok, so the first line is 'The Register is reporting on developments in a California court case pitting blind users against the retailer Target over the lack of accessibility of Target.com' ... my obvious response is, why the hell are blind people concerned about there online shopping experience? Is there leader dog holding the mouse and clicking on the clothing items of color preference? That is just rediculous and if anyone needs a dumb a$$ lawsuit brought against them, its the Storm Troopers running Walmart.
WWPD - What Would Picard Do?
"Because most people believe the disabled have a right to equal access to services as everyone, firstly because those who use assisti[ng] technologies have no choice"
Well, actually they do have a choice. They can get on the bus and go to the Target and handle the actual merchandise, feel it, listen to how it sounds, ask a friend along or a stranger how it looks. Or better yet, patronize a local merchant with the time and inclination to give personal service rather than demanding equal access to mass-produced inferior Chinese-made goods that put American workers out of work and local businesses out of business.
On another note, the web is primarily a visual medium. Like movies. Why don't the blind sue the movie studios for not putting headphones in the theaters? Or the magazine publishers for not sending along a CD of the contents? When did the web become anymore of an essential part of everyday life than going to the movies or reading magazines? What oh what are the poor going to do when they can't get access to the Target website?
- Use of structural markup (h1, h2, h3, h4, strong, em) instead of presentational markup (font, some uses of table) helps. Structural markup lets you specify different CSS for different kinds of media, such as screen, print, TV, and handheld computers, and if your organization is large enough to have the money to cater specifically to blind people, you can have someone make CSS for speech.
- Make sure that your site can still be navigated (even if it doesn't look the way the branding people want) if none of the data referenced by img or object elements actually loads. And make sure that the replacement text for an img or object element is kept up to date.
- Strictly, the preceding point means sites done in SWF need a parallel site done in HTML. (I can't afford retail Adobe Flash software at the moment to verify how well Flash accessibility works.)
- Make sure that your CSS has enough luma contrast between text and backgrounds and that any background image is paired with a comparable solid background color.
- Test increasing the font size in Firefox and IE, and make sure that the layout doesn't break and that the font size actually changes. (You should test in Opera too, but I mention Fx and IE because Opera's zoom is an entirely different process.)
Those of us who do get to grow old may well become disabled too. That includes you too maybe ? Devil's advocate: Do people who grow old enough that the normal aging processes cause disability still have the disposable income to spend on luxury consumer products?Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
The ADA is a huge cash cow for litigators. They can file "drive-by lawsuits", for any technical violation and pretty much win automatically. Worst of all is that they don't even need to complain and give the business owner a chance to remedy the situation, just file the suit and take home a check. Has nothing to do with giving people access.
What ever happened to the days where it wasn't important how a web site was designed??? As if there aren't thousands of choices for almost anything a person could want to buy. Underneath my tinfoil cap, my brain is really starting to believe that the Klingon Warlords over at Wally World are behind this hot mess. However, have you seen their website, its not all that nice either. Long story short, Target and other businesses should be left alone to make their own online choices. Morally, they should only need to update their site if business revenue is affected by it.
WWPD - What Would Picard Do?
Thank the Lord. Hopefully the HTML nightmare that is MySpace - especially the user space - will be made to comply with accessibility requirements as a top priority. Finally most MySpace user's pages might actually become readable HTML.
Will this have a chilling effect on "for sighted users only" or "for hearing users only" web features?
Rather than go to the expense to make videos and other web features accessible, web site owners and designers may say "forgetaboutit" and stick with things that are easy to make accessible.
Adding captions to audios and text- or audio-descriptions to videos costs money. Making sure your web site works well with screen-reading technology costs money. For a big company like Target with lots of blind and deaf customers it's cost-effective to make the site accessible.
For small and medium-sized companies, it may not be. They may say:
"I can pay $SMALLNUM for an uncomplicated web site that gets the job done for everyone, I can pay $MEDIUMNUM for a web site that looks cool and glitzy but might get me sued into oblivion, or I can pay $BIGNUM for a cool and glitzy web site that won't get me sued. I can't afford $BIGNUM and I can't afford to get sued, so I'll stick with a basic web site."
It's the hidden cost of regulatory compliance: Projects that would otherwise get done are scrapped or radically downsized because the cost of complying with the regulations or the cost of protecting yourself from lawsuits is just too high.
By the way, I happen to think the ADA is a Good Thing in principle. However, as with any law or regulation, the law of unintended consequences must not be ignored.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Most of the comments on this story are biased in favor of mandating disabled access for websites. Many of them use the analogy that you have to ensure your page renders properly on IE and Firefox no matter what your favorite browser is, so why not have the same requirement for disabled access. This analogy is false: In the case of the browsers, you are free to deny access to one browser or another and lose a big part of your potential audience (also search for "kill bill's browser"), while in the case of disabled access, a court is applying a law to a private company's website which originally only applied to physical access to places of business.
Is having a poorly-accessible website breaking the law or just bad business? I would think it has to be the latter. Not being able to view certain web sites does not prevent blind individuals from living a normal life (in fact they are among the luckiest if you consider the "shock sites" that don't affect them). Those companies that cater to the blind will find a happy and loyal customer base, but those without the resources or sense to do so should not be penalized. Does the law require all books published to have a braille version?
Please note that I am not talking about government websites, which have mandates for disabled access. It's the burdensome regulation of private companies that concerns me.
Do you expect wheelchair ramps on Mount Everest? Are we to forbid people from developing complex mathematical formulae, because some people are too stupid to understand them?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Even still, it's possible to give a flashy website accessible underpinnings, via techniques like Fahrner Image Replacement. While right now, tricks like this are currently hacks within the HTML/CSS/JS environment, I suspect that continued pressure from lawsuits like this will eventually lead to cleaner solutions, from browser vendors and standards bodies.
Browser support is one big sticking point I have with this. The problem is that web designers are supposed to support disabled people. Analogies may be made to wheelchair ramps and the like, but that's missing one key point: designers also have to support the disabled person's web client-- that could be any manner of OS/browser/helper-app combinations. Would someone who relied on standards-compliant code that wasn't browser supported (use of voice styles, for instance-- many "screen scraper" readers don't support that) be liable in noncompliance? What about the opposite: "This site requires Netscape Navigator 4 Gold and Bob's Screenreader Pro for ADA compliant rendering."
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
If they even manage to win, I'll bet it'll be overturned of the grounds that it was frivolous litigation to begin with.
I will NEVER make my web site ADA compliant. The ADA has nothing to do with giving equal acess to the disabled, but has everything to do with making money for people.
The ADA needs to be rewritten- fast. There needs to be some language that prevents people abusing it as a source of cash. The ADA should be called to "American Who Want Money" Act.
The other thing that disabled people need to get throught their thick skulls is that LIFE SUCKS. DISABILITIES SUCK. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN UNFORTUNATE DISABILITY DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE EVERYBODY WHO ISN'T DISABLED A HARD TIME!!!!!
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
A manufacturer who doesn't properly handle toxic waste is violating the rights of the persons upon whom the toxins impinge. Laws should identify those rights and devise a method for ensuring that rights are not violated (and compensating those whose rights are violated).
A business that doesn't provide handicapped access is violating no-one's rights; the property is privately owned and any visitor is there by permission, not by right. Providing handicapped access should be entirely the decision of the property owner, laws to the contrary notwithstanding. Freedom includes the right to be nasty and suffer the consequences.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'm all for disabled-accessible sites, but until the technology/standards evolve it is not reasonable to expect sites to pay one and a half times the cost of their site to make it disabled-accessible.
damaged by dogma
Target doesn't have to have a blind-accessible website, and they're not entitled some God- or Constitution-given right to a corporate charter. I can't find a specific reference to it, but I've heard that corporate charters are granted in the interest that the corporation serve the public good. Target should have no problem continuing to serve their existing customer base -- just without the Federal Government intrusion of the benefits and protections of being 'incorporated'.
This is assuming that you agree that reasonably accommodating the disabled is inseparable from the public good. If you don't, that's a separately debatable matter.
The property may be privately owned, but the business operated on the property is operated under permission of the government, because society always have recognized that the public has a common interest in regulating how business is carried out because it is so fundamental to the functioning of society overall and can have so significant effects on society.
Amongst those interest, there is a common interest in preventing discrimination and ensuring equal access wherever possible - the moment you allow discrimination there will always be someone who'll want to discriminate against you.
Nobody will force you to make your property accessible to people with disabilities - it is YOUR choice whether or not you want to run a business on your property that admits the general public and abide by the laws that would subject you to or not.
And before you start whining about this, you should start thinking about all the other regulations you have to abide by if you want to run a business depending on your jurisdiction: Health and safety regulations; paying taxes; treatment of employees and working time; opening hours; type of business/zoning regulations etc. etc. Running a business on your property has never been a license to do whatever you want.
Since it is a class action lawsuit, I would imagine they are looking for some kind of payout from Target. A family member of mine owns a big business in California, and as such must always deal with lawsuits of the sort. He was sued by a handicapped man who claimed that his hallways weren't wheelchair accessible even though he had a wheelchair ramp already installed. This same guy had become a millionaire doing this to pretty much any big bussiness in the area, and probably other cities too. He made a killing doing this for the simple fact that it is cheaper to settle out of court then to go to court and win. Fucking disgusting. While I think the Americans with Disabilities Act is a great step forward in our society, the lawsuit against Target is just another example of frivolous greed. The irony is that they will get paid off by Target because they couldn't go online and spend money at Target.
Target should have no problem continuing to serve their existing customer base -- just without the Federal Government intrusion of the benefits and protections of being 'incorporated'.
The biggest benefit is not directly to the corporation, but to the stockholders. The act of incorporating limits the liability of the stockholders to the value of the stock (i.e. stock becomes worthless). The tradeoff is that a corporation is not as free as an individual to do what they want.What about those sites built upon Flash? How are they accessible to the blind?
Block all IPs originating from California.
As long as it's a private business and NOT a corporation (an entity that by its existence is taking a government benefit). The way a corporation works and the protections and benefits it receives muddy the waters of a "free market" and "private ownership" enough in of it themselves. Private businesses have rights, in a sense, because they are property owned by an individual and individuals have rights and can basically do whatever they want (or in theory that's how it works) within the context of their own property.
Once you incorporate, it's an entirely different matter. Corporations (in theory) have no rights. They are a creation of the government.
Yes, there is a general problem with standards that far exceed current browser support... but an ADA-compliant rendering shouldn't really be relying on CSS voice styles. The HTML document itself, without any images or styles, should be accessible. CSS should be used to enhance the user experience, not to enable it.
In general, "browser support" is a perpetually unsolvable problem, because there's a potentially infinite set of user agents (browser) that may be invented. What if I write my own screen reader that's freely-available, but sucks? Can a blind person using my screen reader complain that an arbitrary site doesn't work with my (awful) screen reader? My opinion is generally "only if it is a problem that would affect an overwhelming majority of screen-reader users." That is, if it is a general problem that affects most non-visual user agents, then it's probably a site issue. If it only affects a few user agents, it's probably a UA issue.
But these can't be hard-and-fast rules, since at the core, the W3C web standards are really just "recommendations", and there's no authoritative governing body. This probably falls under some larger legal issue along the lines of "you have to prove that you probably tried to be accessible," which plagues every other legal gray area.
Ok, well I run a forum, and even though anyone online is allowed to access it, I as the site's owner, have the right to ban anyone I don't want there. It is a private site. As an analogy, I own a house. And I let anyone who wants to come in to discuss things come in, but if I don't like someone I can kick them off because it is my private property. I don't see how this law can even be enforced, and if it somehow does go through, I like others in this thread, will just block all users in California, and if that is made illegal descrimination based on IP address or whatever, then I will simply take my site offline and send all my pissed off users to the California government websites to complain.
Your solution would work if you had no plans for doing business in California. I don't think Target is in the position to give up on the California market and their presence in California is what gives state laws jurisdiction. Things might be different for an outfit with no physical presence in the state.
FREEDOM OF CONTRACT PEOPLE. GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES! LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT JUST ABOUT WIRETAPPING!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
"or let them starve to death (or in the very least, let them out on the street to beg)."
Does = "because it's morally right' argument. Your saying if we let them starve to death or let them out on the street to beg it's bad. A purely capitalist/survival of the fittest model would be to do exactly that. Arguments can be made that a society benefits if there is a safety net. However, I'm fairly certain that these arguments have never been proposed by anyone who wasn't raised with a certain "moral" standard.
Maybe it's time to evolve?
But 5% of .1% of Amazon's sales would make accessibleAmazonAffiliate.com a very, very stinking rich individual. That is, if they manage to beat out bookstore-for-the-blind.com and the other fifteen people competing for that space. Its the Internet -- whatever you want, SOMEBODY has made it already, and Google will probably find it for you pretty quickly. (Need an accessible website offering Braille erotica? I'm almost positive one exists, and I'm scared to look for it.)
As an aside, there are too many things which can make a web site inaccessible to you and they can't all be rectified. (Here is the world's simplest example: how do you make a shopping cart accessible for someone who is not literate in English. Bonus points: Do that answer again, but note that I didn't say he was literate in anything else.) Having courts or other government officials decide which disabilities get mandated protection ("OK, blind folks are politically active and sent letters to the right people, illiterate folks didn't send the letters, Spanish speakers did...") guarantees that the question will be resolved in a way which maximizes the gains of a few political actors and spreads massive costs among everybody else. Solving for the same issue through the market spreads the cost for the improvements among those who want to bear it AND will provide fairer and more rationale coverage (targetting the largest and most put-upon usability minorities because, hey, that is where the money is going to be rather than optimizing for minorities-of-one-who-happen-to-live-next-to-a-New-York-Times-reporter).
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Websites are badly designed at the moment, where placement is more important that content.
If the site had been properly designed, rather than thrown up, it would have the content first (over lsow links, get the essential info out first), referentials (so that if this is roughly what you need, you can soon find similar sites) then go on to the fluff (detailed exposition, images, etc).
In that case, you already have a thread to follow.
Why is TFA in a British publication? The California or the American media aren't covering this?
I find being offended by me offensive.
These laws can still be exaggerated to the point of stupidity. I lived for several years in a new condo, part of a three unit building. The parking area (just for the three private residences - not shared with any business) had four spaces, and two of them were legally required to be marked as handicapped, even though no one that lived there (and no one that visited) could legally use them.
This was just stupid, and as a result of having to park on the street for years at my own home, I dislike ADA type laws, and think they should be abolished, because they're not going to be made sane.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it