Comments on: Target settles with blind patrons over site accessibility

Retail giant will pay $6 million to plaintiffs and promises to embed Target.com with code that makes it fully usable by blind visitors, ending a class action suit.

[Steve Jordan]

I'm glad to see this worked out for the NFB and all disabled web users. Hopefully Target won't drag its feet in making their site accessible.

[jjbraunius]

I think this is wild, I can't believe anyone would sue over the use of a site by blind people? That means each one of us web designers should now code for blind people too? Not just for the 2 browser platforms and several OS but also on the 1% or less chance that a blind visitor might want to use our site?
I see this as crazy.

[inntheory]

Well I can understand the legal obligation for a retailer to allow access to physical stores for those in wheelchairs, but somehow the idea that they are legally bound to do for every disability online would extend into the realm of irresponsible litigation.

Why should an online retailer be required to provide for disabled web users? Which sties then are responsible to do so as well?

I can understand why it is that companies would want to do so on their own as the ability to do so isn't that difficult, but legally requiring or allowing irresponsible lawsuits as such can only be seen as an attempt to get money for the litigious-minded.

[WulfTheSaxon]

[Web developer catching up with a backlog of cnet emails...]

That's just it, though -- they're not exactly an "online retailer". They're a brick & mortar business that happens to have a website. Otherwise, the lawsuit would have no standing. The only sites required to be accessible are government ones and those of brick & mortar businesses (although the latter is still debatable as the case was lamentably settled out of court).

Building an accessible website is trivially easy and 99% of well-designed sites (that is to say, very few sites...) don't even need to worry about accessibility -- following industry standards and best practices will make a site accessible practically by accident (both for impaired users and search engines).

Several countries** /do/ require all websites to be accessible, though -- and no harm seems to have come of it. Rather, it seems only good can come of freeing up information currently locked away in poorly-designed websites -- it furthers the development of the Semantic Web*.

I'm not necessarily in favor of requiring all US sites to be accessible (at least not at this time), but I would wholeheartedly support a non-binding resolution suggesting that sites should strive for it. I would also support an extension of Section 508*** to cover state and local governments. If that is deemed unconstitutional, we could always limit some sort of aid to non-compliant states (like we already do with highway funds).

* see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web (BTW: Is it just me, or does SciAm have far better URLs than cnet?)
** The UK and Sweden, for example
*** of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; currently requires accessibility only at the federal level; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508

[JunkSiu]

My question will be : how?? Is there some kind of guild line somewhere that anyone doing website can follow?

[TV James]

Bet they wished they had a time machine. They could have saved themselves $6 million dollars by just doing it in the first place. And not looked like an *ss by letting it go to court and then losing.

Derrrr....

[DigitalFrog]

I applaud making site available to difreently-abled people where technology permits, but this should never have been a lawsuit. I can understand the gov't giving Target a deadline to comply and slapping a fine if they don't, but $6 mill because someone couldn't shop online? That's sad.

[ravensjeff]

According to the article, NFB only want the site more accessible to a site reader via more inclusions of alt text. This is standard practice for any web firm that knows what they're doing. Heck, it's even good SEO practice. I don't see this as a big deal on the web design front. They're not asking for anything out of the ordinary.

On the other hand, it is a shame this had to get to lawsuit status. I hate seeing that sort of thing.

[paulej]

For those asking, the W3C does publish accessibility guidelines that web designers can follow. Even so, it seems that a $6M charge is a bit excessive. Since many people posting are surprised and unaware of the accessibility guidelines that have been created, then it seems to suggest that the government (or who?) is equally at fault for not properly educating. People have long been aware that we need certain physical changes to buildings to make them accessible to handicapped people. But, a web site? That is news to many. Further, as one person rightfully pointed out, this is no simple request. There are differences in browsers, there is a desire to use cool technology like Flash. So, what is the alternative? The best solution, frankly, is to produce two sites: one geared for the blind and one geared for the rest of the world. Having a text-only version of sites is probably useful for a variety of reasons and might be worth considering, as opposed to adding special mark-up to the page geared for the majority of site visitors.

In any case, I can appreciate the desire to create accessible sites. But, the fact is that the majority of us (myself included) do not even have a way to see if there are problems. I do not have software to use, nor do I have the time. And for many companies, a web site exists only as an advertising medium, a billboard advertisement. Should blind people sue over billboard signs, too? The laws need to be careful here. It is one thing shopping on Amazon, which only has an on-line presence, versus Target versus a site that primarily exists for advertising purposes, but which might be used for the occasional sale. They cannot be treated in the same way.

[daveruk]

I have to disagree with you as this kind of mis-information does not help people understand the issue.

Creating an accessibile website is a very easy process. Use valid, semantic code and follow current best practises. There is no such thing as "special" mark-up that gets added to a page - only normal code that is used properly. Yes, I understand that people browse using different browsers, different screen resolutions, different platforms and different devices however a well implemented site overcomes the vast majority of visual descrepancies you see between them. There is absolutely no need to create a secondary site to cater for users with impairments as long as your site is done properly in the first place.

There are many, many free resources on the internet to allow you to validate your code and to check for accessibility issues.

I'm not sure about US law but in the UK a business website is classified as a service being provided by that business. According to the Disability Discrimination Act that means it needs to be accessible. It may just be a brochure ware site but it is still an extension of that business.

[paul4623]

The problem that I have with this ruling is that the $6M will go predominately to the lawyers and thereby encourage other lawyers to establish much less worthy foundations and file similar suits.

Lawyers are a clever and greedy breed, so I can already image a foundation for the stupid and dumb, that classifies their plaintiffs as learning disabled. I'm sure that even the most web savvy individuals have encountered difficult web sites and would be inspired to join in the class action. The world has already established that people are willing to refer to themselves as "idiots" or "dummies" as evident by the best selling books with those labels in the title.