Blind patrons sue Target for site inaccessibility

Bruce Sexton says he's one of many blind individuals who can live more independently because of the Internet.

When it comes to shopping, for example, the 24-year-old college student doesn't have to get to and navigate brick-and-mortar stores or ask employees for help. Rather, with the help of a keyboard and screen-reading software, he can navigate a Web site and make his purchase.

Or can he?

Sexton, along with a blind advocacy group, filed a class action lawsuit this week against Target, alleging that the retail giant's Web site is inaccessible to the blind and thus violates a California law that incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit, filed in Northern California's Alameda County Superior Court by Sexton and the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind (NFB), claims that Target.com, "contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for blind customers to use."

For example, the suit charges that visual information is missing "alt-text," or invisible code that allows screen readers to detect and vocalize a description of an image. In addition, the site lacks accessible image maps, an impediment to jumping to different site destinations, the suit says. As a result, Sexton, who attends the University of California, Berkeley, says that while he can search the site for specific products, he's unable to associate prices with those goods.

Sexton, who is president of the California Association of Blind Students, said he has always been too frustrated with Target.com to reach the point of actually buying something. If he did get to the checkout point, he would face an additional barrier: the Web site requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, noted plaintiffs' attorney Mazen Basrawi, who works for Berkeley, Calif.-based Disability Rights Advocates and is also blind.

For a blind person, using a mouse makes it more difficult to gauge one's bearings on a site, explained another representative of the Disability Rights Advocates.

"A blind patron cannot purchase anything at Target.com without sighted help," Basrawi said, adding that Target.com is just one prominent example of many corporate sites that fail to meet minimum Web accessibility standards. "This is the tip of the iceberg."

A Target spokeswoman told CNET News.com on Friday that the company has not yet been served with legal papers, and therefore cannot comment on any specific allegations. "However, we strive to make our goods and services available to all of our guests, including those with disabilities," reads a statement from the company.

Specifically, the suit argues that Target is violating the California Disabled Persons Act, which guarantees full and equal access for people with disabilities to all public places. It also argues that Target is violating the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, because blind patrons have been denied full and equal access to Target.com and have been provided services inferior to non-disabled patrons.

The lawsuit seeks changes to the Web site, an admission of the alleged violations by the company, and an undesignated amount of damages to plaintiffs as well as attorneys' fees.

But Baltimore-based plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Goldstein said the suit's larger goal is educating companies about Web site accessibility issues that can be fixed relatively inexpensively. He added that there are financial incentives for doing so, particularly with the growing numbers of blind baby boomers who are Web consumers. "We're just forcing retailers to make more money," he said.

The NFB wrote to Target in May, asking it to make the site more accessible, according to the plaintiffs. Negotiations broke down in January, which led to the filing of the lawsuit, the organization said.

Target.com is "powered by Amazon.com," something defined on the site as utilizing "Amazon.com technology and patented Web site capabilities such as 1-Click checkout to make shopping faster and more convenient for you."

Basrawi says it's not clear if that Amazon technology is leading to the inaccessibility issues, but he knows of other "powered by Amazon" retail sites that are problematic for the blind.

This is just the latest in a series of lawsuits filed related to Web accessibility for the blind. Goldstein represented the NFB in a case against America Online that ended in a 2000 settlement that led to better Web service for the blind, he said. And in August 2004, Priceline.com and Ramada.com agreed to make their Web pages easier to navigate for the blind and visually impaired as part of a settlement with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

But soon after, a federal appeals court ruled that Web publishers are not required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act in a case filed by an advocacy group for the blind asking Southwest Airlines to redesign its Web site.

The right step

I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened sooner. I'm not
necessarily saying that Target is a big, bad evil store. I'm just
saying that this sort of thing has been coming for a long time.

Got Zeldman?

The right step

I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened sooner. I'm not
necessarily saying that Target is a big, bad evil store. I'm just
saying that this sort of thing has been coming for a long time.

Got Zeldman?

[Bryan Bartlett]

Why do they deserve money?

While I can't even begin to imagine how bad it is to be blind, there is one thing about this suit that I think is crappy.

Sueing Target to get them to change there website so it's more accessible by the blind because there are laws in place that require them to, completely understandable.

Making Target admit to making certain violations, which is sort of an appology to the blind for not following certain guidelines, understandable.

I can even understand them wanting Target to pay the legal fees related to the trial, but why do they feel they deserve "an undesignated amount of damages to plaintiffs" because someone made a mistake?!?

What damage did target really do to these people except to make it frustrating for them to navigate Target's website? They could simply go to Walmart.com or some other website that actually has their website setup right.

Wanting money from this just doesn't make sense to me, anyone else think the same thing?

[Bryan Bartlett]

Why do they deserve money?

While I can't even begin to imagine how bad it is to be blind, there is one thing about this suit that I think is crappy.

Sueing Target to get them to change there website so it's more accessible by the blind because there are laws in place that require them to, completely understandable.

Making Target admit to making certain violations, which is sort of an appology to the blind for not following certain guidelines, understandable.

I can even understand them wanting Target to pay the legal fees related to the trial, but why do they feel they deserve "an undesignated amount of damages to plaintiffs" because someone made a mistake?!?

What damage did target really do to these people except to make it frustrating for them to navigate Target's website? They could simply go to Walmart.com or some other website that actually has their website setup right.

Wanting money from this just doesn't make sense to me, anyone else think the same thing?

[StinkyMcButt]

Corporate Blackmail

There are NO major e-commerce websites that meet all the qualifications listed in this suit and many of the requirements aren't even feasible. This is an attempt to extort money from a large corporation.

I'll bet on the outcome. Target will settle this for a couple mill with about 75% of that going to the attorneys.

Sad to see a blind person being used as a shill by a greedy attorney.

[StinkyMcButt]

Corporate Blackmail

There are NO major e-commerce websites that meet all the qualifications listed in this suit and many of the requirements aren't even feasible. This is an attempt to extort money from a large corporation.

I'll bet on the outcome. Target will settle this for a couple mill with about 75% of that going to the attorneys.

Sad to see a blind person being used as a shill by a greedy attorney.

[fear_and_loathing]

More abuse

under the guise of the ADA.

The motto of the ADA should be "We want to be equal to you...
no matter what the cost or inconvenience is to you"

If you're blind, deaf, whatever, life has dealt you a crappy hand.
Is is completely inconceivable that at some point in your life
you're going to need the assistance of someone?

"A blind patron cannot purchase anything at Target.com without
sighted help,"

What's next, forcing porn sites to add subtitles for deaf people?
How about graphic verbal descriptions of the action for the
blind?

I hate to sound totally unsympathetic, but everything is NOT
going to be equal for those of you with disabilities. All the
lawsuits in the world are not going to make everything equal.
Get over yourselves and accept that you have limitations and
that sometimes you WILL NEED TO ASK FOR HELP!!!

[fear_and_loathing]

More abuse

under the guise of the ADA.

The motto of the ADA should be "We want to be equal to you...
no matter what the cost or inconvenience is to you"

If you're blind, deaf, whatever, life has dealt you a crappy hand.
Is is completely inconceivable that at some point in your life
you're going to need the assistance of someone?

"A blind patron cannot purchase anything at Target.com without
sighted help,"

What's next, forcing porn sites to add subtitles for deaf people?
How about graphic verbal descriptions of the action for the
blind?

I hate to sound totally unsympathetic, but everything is NOT
going to be equal for those of you with disabilities. All the
lawsuits in the world are not going to make everything equal.
Get over yourselves and accept that you have limitations and
that sometimes you WILL NEED TO ASK FOR HELP!!!

[Earl Benser]

Something is wrong here.....

... I appreciate a blind person's problems trying to use he
internet for anything, but the Internet is essentially a visual
structure, and it's not meant to interact with blind people. Nor
can any sort of text reader even begin to be adequate for almost
all web pages. So a suit like thins one is frivolous and almost a
legal sham.

Maybe we need a a special access mode for blind people, with
simpler web pages suitable for text readers. I don't think that
this mode has any reason to be mandatory, but it could be
optional for any site that wanted to offer it. The user could have
a master cookie on his or her computer which designated the
user as blimd in one form or another.

Last time I checked, the telephone companies aren't required to
provide phone books in braille. But any person can dial the
operator, say "braille", and get full assistance in locating a phone
number. But no braille phone book. So when was the last time
this group sued the phone company?

Seems like there are more important things these peopl could be
doing.

[Earl Benser]

Something is wrong here.....

... I appreciate a blind person's problems trying to use he
internet for anything, but the Internet is essentially a visual
structure, and it's not meant to interact with blind people. Nor
can any sort of text reader even begin to be adequate for almost
all web pages. So a suit like thins one is frivolous and almost a
legal sham.

Maybe we need a a special access mode for blind people, with
simpler web pages suitable for text readers. I don't think that
this mode has any reason to be mandatory, but it could be
optional for any site that wanted to offer it. The user could have
a master cookie on his or her computer which designated the
user as blimd in one form or another.

Last time I checked, the telephone companies aren't required to
provide phone books in braille. But any person can dial the
operator, say "braille", and get full assistance in locating a phone
number. But no braille phone book. So when was the last time
this group sued the phone company?

Seems like there are more important things these peopl could be
doing.

[bjlevine]

Let's sue all the TV networks while we're at it.

Sure, why not sue the TV networks because they don't make the inverse of "closed-captioning" for the blind. Wait a minute...wait a minute...I've got it! Let's sue the radio stations because they don't make their content accessible to the deaf!

While we're at it, let's sue the states for not following ADA guidelines to permit the blind to drive.

And lawyers wonder why they have a bad reputation? They only have themselves to blame.

[bjlevine]

Let's sue all the TV networks while we're at it.

Sure, why not sue the TV networks because they don't make the inverse of "closed-captioning" for the blind. Wait a minute...wait a minute...I've got it! Let's sue the radio stations because they don't make their content accessible to the deaf!

While we're at it, let's sue the states for not following ADA guidelines to permit the blind to drive.

And lawyers wonder why they have a bad reputation? They only have themselves to blame.

[Stating]

Another Gravy Train For Lawyers

We need to take the profit motive for attorneys out of class action lawsuits. There needs to be a cap on attorney's fees, just like there is a cap on plaintiff awards (medical awards). Taking the obscene profit motive out of these multi-million dollar cases would reduce them down to truly meritous cases and not just an opportunity for greenmail. Face it, the general public will end up paying higher prices at Target so that the lawyers at Ambulance, Chaiser, & Smith can build even bigger mansions in Atherton.

[Stating]

Another Gravy Train For Lawyers

We need to take the profit motive for attorneys out of class action lawsuits. There needs to be a cap on attorney's fees, just like there is a cap on plaintiff awards (medical awards). Taking the obscene profit motive out of these multi-million dollar cases would reduce them down to truly meritous cases and not just an opportunity for greenmail. Face it, the general public will end up paying higher prices at Target so that the lawyers at Ambulance, Chaiser, & Smith can build even bigger mansions in Atherton.

[KsprayDad]

I'm glad

I was going to comment on what a wasteful suit this is but it seems everyone is doing fine on this.

Equality for life's essentials I can understand but shopping on the internet is not an essential.
Perhaps poor people should sue Target for not selling products at a loss?

I'm glad, for once, that I live in a country that doesn't allow for CONTINUOUS lawsuits to be launched for (from foreign eyes) what seems like ANYTHING.

It is too bad that lawyers in the US have so much power that it is going to be extremely tough for Americans to change this.

[KsprayDad]

I'm glad

I was going to comment on what a wasteful suit this is but it seems everyone is doing fine on this.

Equality for life's essentials I can understand but shopping on the internet is not an essential.
Perhaps poor people should sue Target for not selling products at a loss?

I'm glad, for once, that I live in a country that doesn't allow for CONTINUOUS lawsuits to be launched for (from foreign eyes) what seems like ANYTHING.

It is too bad that lawyers in the US have so much power that it is going to be extremely tough for Americans to change this.

[KsprayDad]

Public Places

Quote:

Specifically, the suit argues that Target is violating the California Disabled Persons Act, which guarantees full and equal access for people with disabilities to all public places.

A website is a 'public place'...ok...everyone in their underwear at the computer, you are being charged with exposure....everyone drinking at the computer, public drunkeness....everyone smoking... you get the idea.

[KsprayDad]

Public Places

Quote:

Specifically, the suit argues that Target is violating the California Disabled Persons Act, which guarantees full and equal access for people with disabilities to all public places.

A website is a 'public place'...ok...everyone in their underwear at the computer, you are being charged with exposure....everyone drinking at the computer, public drunkeness....everyone smoking... you get the idea.

[troy2000me]

This is absurd

Why do people with disibilites think they DESERVE compensation for such things. I can definetly understand the actual physical store front for being able to accomodate for wheelchair entrances and such, but, this is america, and seeing as how they are not owned by the government, they should have their website designed any way they like. ANYONE who does web programming or development (I do) knows that complying with these would be difficult, and in some situations, impssible. Especially if navigation menu's are written in JavaScript or Flash. Should sites have to use BASIC html even though the site would be visualy un-attractive to the majority of people (who do not happen to have a visual disibility) so that a minority can access it? I sure hope this doesnt lead to nationwide legislation, or, sure enough, even personal websites or personal blogs will have to make sure the site is programmed for visualy disabled people...

[troy2000me]

This is absurd

Why do people with disibilites think they DESERVE compensation for such things. I can definetly understand the actual physical store front for being able to accomodate for wheelchair entrances and such, but, this is america, and seeing as how they are not owned by the government, they should have their website designed any way they like. ANYONE who does web programming or development (I do) knows that complying with these would be difficult, and in some situations, impssible. Especially if navigation menu's are written in JavaScript or Flash. Should sites have to use BASIC html even though the site would be visualy un-attractive to the majority of people (who do not happen to have a visual disibility) so that a minority can access it? I sure hope this doesnt lead to nationwide legislation, or, sure enough, even personal websites or personal blogs will have to make sure the site is programmed for visualy disabled people...