Judge allows class action over Target Web site

Plaintiffs say company doesn't allow the blind equal access to stores because they can't obtain online product and sales information.

The story "Judge allows class action over Target Web site" published October 4, 2007 at 12:00 PM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[umbrae]

Target's website should only be viewed by the blind...

Because it is so hideous. About time someone tagged it for the poorly developer POS it is.

[timber2005]

Both Visuall and Codewise

Looking at the code for target.com, the code is very odd.

Using Inline CSS (which takes logner to load, longer for screenreaders to 'ignore') instead of external, but it appears they know how to use external sheets because the pull THREE amazon sheets.

I like this line though.

"

Site information and information for assistive technology users"

[GGGlen]

Best.Line.Ever

You owe me a new keyboard, I just spewed a pint of beer over
mine.

;-)

[gggg sssss]

cant see the issue

What a lawyer enriching crock. People who don't own computers, people who are deaf AND blind, people who do not read english, people who dont have internet can't access walmart's site either.

The people who write screen readesr should fix their software to work with all sites. It is the screenreader people's fault that their customers, teh blind, cannot access target, and others. The blind cannot access teh shopping channel on TV either.

Reminds me of a drive though bank in Florida that has braile on the ATM keys. ***

[NWLB]

Makes one want to be insensitive.

And the blind also want hybrid car makers to make the cars produce more noise, because they can't hear them in the road.

[Stating]

Target Mascot Is A Seeing Eye Dog

Target's mascot is a seeing eye dog. They obvioulsly bend over backwards already for the blind mafia. Oh, and I suppose next it will be the deaf, who will sue because Target's site is not hearing impaired accessable.

[Dr. StrangeOne]

Moonbats should be delighted

I think I would faint if any federal judge suddenly declares the actual meaning of "equal protection of the laws."

[devbost]

This story is an invitation...

...to make snide remarks of the sort that people already are posting. But this case raises some valid legal questions that are worth discussing.

First and foremost are the questions of how technologies like the Internet should be handled vis a vis the Americans With Disabilities Act. If Target stores failed to make their stores accessible to people with wheelchairs, they'd be out of compliance with the AWD Act. How should the matter of Target's web site be handled with regard to the law? Many of the technologies that people use on a daily basis had not been invented yet or were not yet widely adopted when the law was originally written. What should the standards of accessibility be for people with disabilities who try to use the Internet?

In this case, I think the injury suffered by the plaintiffs is minimal because anything you can buy on Target's web site is also available in hundreds of other places on the web, many of which do make their sites accessible to screen readers. However, what if that were not the case? What if this person had been trying to obtain some sort of specialty good that is only available from one web site, or only from the good's manufacturer, and that site isn't accessible to screen readers? What does that person do then? Should they be shut out of doing business over the web because the site in question isn't accessible to them because of their disability?

What is puzzling is why Target even let things go this far. It is trivially easy to modify a web site to accommodate screen readers. I don't understand why they had to get dragged into court and suffer the public relations hit that they are taking from this. Wal-Mart and others are already telling blind people that their screen readers - and their dollars - are welcome there. Target is sending the exact opposite message. If nothing else, that's a rotten business decision.

[regulator1956]

Exactly, it's a business decision

I sort of agree with the physical requirements to outfit all businesses to conform with the Americans With Disabilities Act - only issue is when the cost can be brutal.

In the on-line world, the physical issues disappear that going to other stores might be difficult or impossible.

So, if a company decides it doesn't want to spend the $$ to change its website, or design from the beginning to conform, to conform to software used by impaired people, it's their choice.

Changing the URL from Target to WalMart isn't very difficult. If you can use a browser, you are NOT impaired.

Do all websites in Spanish have to allow for perfect translation since I can't read Spanish? Is a class-action lawsuit valid to force them to make changes so all translation software works perfectly with the site? Maybe I should use a different website.

[gggg sssss]

fix screenreaders

if a website is inaccessibe to Firefox, can you sue? No. Fix the screenreaders to keep up, or deal with, with technology.

[bamabrad]

Shouldn't go there anyway

No non-profits allowed-No recruiting by or armed forces allowed-Won't get any of my money!

[bamabrad]

Shouldn't go there anyway

No non-profits allowed-No recruiting by our armed forces allowed-Won't get any of my money!