| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Natl. Federation of the Blind Sues Online Retailers under ADA |
| 2006-10-24 |
| Some online retailers are rethinking their Web sites in light of a recent federal court ruling that says they must by more accessible to the blind. In a class-action lawsuit filed in Berkeley, Calif., by the National Federation of the Blind, a federal district court judge ruled that the Target online shopping site, which has no audio component, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and could be sued. The retail giant had sought to have the case thrown out on the grounds that its site didn't constitute a "place" and, as such, was not covered by disability-access laws. "To limit the ADA to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain language of that statute," U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel wrote on Sept. 9, allowing the case to proceed. Despite the ruling, which applies only to businesses with both online and brick-and-mortar outlets, Patel rejected a request for a preliminary injunction that would have required Target to update its site immediately, saying more time was needed to weigh the retailer's claim that its site was already accessible to the average blind person. Blind Internet users normally access Web sites using keyboards and screen-reading software, according to the National Federation of the Blind, an advocacy group based in Baltimore. The group claims Target.com contains "thousands of access barriers," including a lack of alt-tags embedded beneath its images that would allow screen-reading software to give blind users a vocal description of the contents, according to papers filed in court. "For blind people, the Internet is a great place to shop, because Web sites are usually far more accessible than stores," said John Pare, the group's spokesman. Pare noted that most online retail sites are accessible to the blind, and those that aren't are generally quick to fix any obstacles. "Usually, they're unaware that there's a problem, and once we let them know they're happy to make changes," Pare said. Kathy Wahlbin, the director of user-experience services at Mindshare Interactive Campaigns, a Washington-based e-commerce consultancy firm, said that when it comes to accessibility, most online retailers face a "hurdle of understanding." "What they need to know is how a blind person uses a Web site, how it sounds to them, and how that's different from other users," Wahlbin said. Wahlbin said online retailers can start by conducting an accessibility audit of their site. "It's not costly, and once you understand the basic issues it's easy to implement," she said. Judy Colbert, a Web usability consultant, said online retailers should welcome any chance to make their site as accessible as possible to everyone. "It takes only a few minutes to put in alt-tags and if it's done while youÂ’re building a site, there are no additional costs," Colbert said. The tags are also more easily picked up by search engines, Colbert added. "So as far as accessibility goes, it's an implied obligation for online retailers," she said. "But one that's good for business." The lawsuit against Target is expected to be heard in the coming months. |
| Posted by:mcsegeek1 |
| #18 I can't imagine why Target is fighting this. It really isn't a big deal to fix something like this for any competent web designer, and the additional business should cover the expense in almost no time. ADA can be a pain, but this is a case where it's a lot smarter to switch than fight. |
| Posted by: Glealing Glinemp9117 2006-10-24 22:58 |
| #17 Gah! Run, Barbara! Your cookies are just the beginning of what he's after! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-24 22:00 |
| #16 I ate them. They were tasty too |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-10-24 21:53 |
| #15 Well, triple-crapola. #14 was me. I just checked my cookies and they've been wiped. How'd that happen? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-10-24 21:46 |
| #14 #13 - the main reason I don't go into at Target unless I can't find something anyplace else is it's a lousy store. The few times I've been in there, they didn't have anything I wanted. |
| Posted by: Whurong Glavirt4053 2006-10-24 21:42 |
| #13 PW, I think Zenster is dead on; if it's good enough for ( fill in the blank here) then it needs to be available for me to and all my other (fill in the blank again) friends. Like RJS sez: quit shopping @ Target. Remember Target also doesn't support the USMCs Toys for Tots, so it looks to me like there are at least 2 demographics that could take their dollars elsewhere. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret 2006-10-24 21:24 |
| #12 Like the first place I would go to when I wanted to by something on line is TARGET This is a shakedown pure and simple. Nothing else. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-24 18:38 |
| #11 Perhaps the blind should just not shop at Target. That's generally how Capitalism works. When you go to the courts my first assumption is not that you want the world to be fair and wrongs addressed but that you want cash. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-10-24 17:51 |
| #10 LOL - Mike, that's so un-PC - you're my hero |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-10-24 17:14 |
| #9 Oooh, you're bad, Mike. Really bad. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-24 16:50 |
| #8 ...This is far from new. About 15 years ago, NFB took over running the supply stores at most stateside USAF bases. The majority of the workers were legally blind, and as such had a dickens of a time assisting the troops. Complaints were made, and we were told to hut up and be understanding. I found myself on the recieving end of a chewing-out when I asked why a facility operated by the blind had a giant poster/banner over the counter that proclaimed: OUR VISION. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-24 16:44 |
| #7 For heaven's sake, Zenster, they just want the websites to be screenreader-friendly. Don't blow it up into something bigger than it is just so you can pontificate. |
| Posted by: Phanter Whelet6720 2006-10-24 16:43 |
| #6 Okay, let's hit the slippery slopes here and ask if the websites should provide audio descriptions only in English or (start counting) how many other languages? Who pays for all the translating, text generation, voice recording and extra server capacity? Must sighted consumers who represent the vast majority of online shoppers finance, through price increases, these new services for the blind? We all know that the retailers aren't going to take a hit in their profits to fund this. A more equitable solution would be for all blind Internet users to have a braille pad that outputs in English only and they can all learn English-based braille. Lawyers screaming bloody murder in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-24 16:27 |
| #5 Sorry, I don'r read Braille... |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-10-24 16:24 |
| #4 This is nonsense, it is easy to design a website compatible with screenreaders, you don't need audio. Screenreaders can read basic HTML with no problem, the only issue is photos. In Targets case the photos will always show the product being discussed on that page so this also is a non-issue. Any halfway decent lawyer could humiliate the Nation Federation of the Blind and their little dog too. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-10-24 16:20 |
| #3 Judge Marilyn Hall Patel is a Jimmy Carter appointee. People like her are a shining example of why it is vital that the presidency remains in Republican hands after GWB. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-10-24 16:12 |
| #2 This is just lawyers seeing easy money. Kill the damn lawyers. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-10-24 15:59 |
| #1 Next, state bureaus of motor vehicles must modify the driver testing portions of their licensing exams to be made more accessible to the blind. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2006-10-24 15:37 |