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 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.
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.
Because most people believe the disabled have a right to equal access to services as everyone, firstly because those who use assistive technologies have no choice and secondly it's not their fault. Not only that but there's really no excuse for designing an inaccessible site, it's not difficult, in fact in most cases it's easier. Inaccessible usually means Flash/Javascript/IE only sites, which not only stops access for the disabled but for those of us who hate Flash/Javascript/Internet Explorer too, it also implies the Web designer/developer is incompetent.
There are circumstances where it's impossible to cater for people using assistive technologies: like wheelchair access to listed buildings (not uncommon in Europe) or prohibitive cost for small businesses to provide wheelchair access, I don't think Web sites are one of them though.
Think of it this way: do you use Firefox? Do you think all Web sites should work given your chosen technology? Or is it your job to somehow adapt to people who only code for Internet Explorer? Is it their fault that you don't use Internet Explorer? Frankly too bad on you. Life sucks. Now imagine someone's showing you that attitude, yet your body is setup such that you can't use anything but Firefox. If you ever go blind from looking at too much Natalie Portman smothered in hot grits I hope you remember your post.
Back on topic: the biggest problem I see for site owners is CAPTCHA as screen readers can't read the majority of CAPTCHAs out there, everyone had better make sure the system they use allows for a sound file alternative. reCAPTCHA looks like a good service, you get to encode books at the same time as fighting spammers! Personally haven't used it on a project, but did notice the sound file alternative link.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
http://pornfortheblind.org/ is doing this with pornography sample clips already, the basic idea should apply to any site.
At some point almost everybody suffers a "life sucks" moment, and we create rules to try and fairly take care of people during those instances. If you have a genetic defect, why can't health insurance companies deny you coverage? If somehow you lose your job, why are you allowed to get out of debt by filing bankruptcy?
Sure life sucks, that doesn't mean society can't help with "reasonable accomodation."
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
"Why is it my job (metaphorically speaking) to ensure those who are disabled can use my facilities?"
I don't really know the answer, but I can offer you some speculation: If you're offering your services to the general public, then you'd be unfairly discriminating against disabled people. (This is assuming, of course, that the changes are reasonable. Ramps leading to the doorway aren't the same as denying wheelchair access to a roller coaster.) Now, that's a little broad/extreme, so I'll water it down a bit. A place like Target sells everyday needs to a broad range of people. If a wheelchair-bound person cannot buy something like toilet paper, they're in trouble. I think the idea is to make the world a little easier on people that have these problems.
"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."
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it. Unfortunately, that's not something you'd be saying if you were stuck in a wheelchair. Those people with a shitty roll of the dice are doing the best they can with the technology available to them to continue to lead a productive life. If common everyday tasks are difficult because a big company like Target didn't spare a little extra expense to resolve the issue, it becomes offensive. "Why is it so frickin hard to build a ramp?! I just want some f'n toilet paper!"
Okay, that's wheelchair access to a physical property, so that example doesn't work well in this discussion. So what about this particular case? From what I've gathered, they could, without a lot of effort or expense, update their site to work for the blind. They're not doing that. In theory, they could just take their business and move on to Wal-mart or Amazon or something. But the problem is that disabled people have had to fight battles like this for decades. If they don't win something like this, the risk is other companies will ignore them because they're not big enough to be profitable.
Life sucks for these people, but it doesn't have to. That's the point. When a little more thought goes into the design of a building or a webspace, it makes life easier for everybody, but it also makes life livable for those with disabilities. Life can suck. That roll of the dice can happen to you at any time.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Google is blind. Are you aware of how many people tailor Web sites for that thing?
I have a sneaking suspicion you've never used a screen reader, nor are you a proficient Web designer. Where the text is on the page is irrelevant, as long as the page has good structure: headings, lists, blockquotes, em tags, strong tags etc. a screen reader will be able to read it perfectly well. The Web is for communicating information, text is the best way of achieving that in most cases and where images are used all that's needed are the trivial additions of alt tags to provide a quick description of what the image contains.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
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.
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.
"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." -
I know that Libertarians like to pretend it isn't true, but there are some things that are good for society that would almost never happen under the free market. If 0.5% of Target's customers are blind (a decent estimate), it might not be profitable for Target to go to the expense of assisting them. But if all businesses came to the same conclusion, we'd have a completely inaccessible society, and everyone with a disability would be forced to either live on social security or have a generous person assist them with everything in life. It's not only cruel, it's also worse for the overall economy if these people can't live independently.
Requiring businesses to make reasonable accomodations to the disabled is not intruding, it's really reducing the amount of our tax dollars that need to be spent helping those who can't live independently. This is in addition to the fact that in our society we believe that everyone should be treated equally, even when it requires extra effort to do so.
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
And what's wrong with making sure that blind people aren't begging on the streets for food? Because that's what happens if you deny them access to jobs and stores. Do you really want blind people to have to drive to the store because they can't order what they need via the internet?
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
- 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?"Zero support from me for regulations of this kind on private business."
If your a completely private entity, those accessibility rules would not apply. But for businesses open to the public, there's a long history of discrimination that has been held as improper ("Irish need not apply" help wanted signs, real estate deeds preventing sale to Jews, "Whites Only" lunch counters, etc.) and the state and federal governments have the legal power to force you to be open to everyone if you're not a completely private club. That has been extended to handicap accessibility in the 70s and 80s. Most of the things required are cheap when accounted for in the planning stages, e.g. set your light switches 48" above the floor rather than 54" or 60", use lever handles rather than knobs, grab bars in bathrooms, ramps instead of steps, and so on. And a lot of those improvements can be helpful for those without major disabilities, too.
There is some compromise built in to those laws and building codes, for example, you are not going to be forced to add a ramp to your 19th century building (no 14th century buildings in use here in the USA) unless you're doing extensive remodelling (IIRC 50% of the value of the building in Illinois). Making changes to a website that probably changes all the time anyway does not fall into the kind of cost category that adding an elevator would. So I have zero sympathy for a publicly accessible commercial web site that doesn't try to provide accessibility to all those it can.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
Firefox also has a nifty feature that lets you set a guaranteed Minimum font size- anything smaller than, say, 12 points can be preemptively forced to 12 points.
Edit-preferences-content (tools-options-content on windows)
Under "Fonts & Colors" click advanced
Set your minimum font size.
Alternatively, in about:config, you can edit font.minimum-size.x-user-def (and anything else that happens to be under font.minimum-size.)
Care about privacy? Read this!
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.
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
At the time of the lawsuit, it was impossible for a screen reader user to 'checkout'. You could, with difficulty, put items in a cart, but the 'checkout' button was a hot region on the screen which was not selectable by keyboard. You HAD to use a mouse to click on the checkout button.
"but what are the "and headings are missing that are needed for navigation"?"
I would guess that means things like tables are missing properly formatted (meaning they can be picked up by the naked eye) headers. There are numerous accessibility guidelines that websites are generally required to follow, unfortunately many developers are completely unaware of them or put them at a very low priority. Its more fun to develop that neat web 2.0 javascript widget than it is to ensure all your inputs have properly formatted labels.
"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."
What that generally means is that the page isn't following the correct conventions, so the browser isn't able to pick up how the page is supposed to be rendered. For instance, from looking at the page today (after they made their so-called improvements), this is how they display their search box:
Lets skip over for a moment that they still don't have alt text for that image. They do have a text label for their search box, problem is it is inside a div next to the input. Now that is easy enough for a user with vision to tell what it is talking about, but a browser with a screenreader cannot just look for text that is next to the input. They have to look for the associated <label> element, and in this case all that element contains is an image. So when the browser comes across the text input and the user uses the browser shortcut to tell them what the input is for, instead of reading "Site Search" it will probably try to describe an image and a hyperlink. What the page should have done is put the text in the label element and put the nice looking image with the hyperlink sit next to the input for sighted users to read.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
You do your cause no credit. His "cause" is that no one should be forced to cater to the disabled at gunpoint, which is effectively what federal regulation is.
There's nothing in that philosophy that says it's not perfectly OK to publicly call out a bunch of jackass robot-head mods for the dumbfucks that they are. In fact, it's remarkably consistent with the idea above that it would only take a few 'chair bound folks crawling into Target stores on their bellies with the media in attendance to change things. Public spectacle embarrassing the company, rather than federal bureaucrats. See the difference?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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