What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
260 Comments
- fleener, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23In the U.S., federal agencies and many state agencies are required to make their web sites accessible to people with disabilities (Section 508). Arguably, accessibility has always been required of businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
http://www.section508.gov/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
The good news is that accessibility does not cost anything extra. It is better known as modern web design. Or good web design. Or, uhh, doesn't-everyone-code-pages-like-this? web design.
Hire good designers who know what they're doing and you wouldn't have this lawsuit in the first place.
This is a sound and proper lawsuit. Today it's simply inexcusable for web designers to be building inaccessible web sites for such basic functions as commerce. - Floodle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22You could also sue mime artists - they're the worst, absolutely no consideration for the blind at all.
- aristan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I'm of a few different opinions in this situation.
First, Being a web designer, I feel that all sites should make every effort to be accessible. It's just good for business. However, I don't see how this is much different than the fact that Target doesn't have Braille price tags in their stores.
Second, Target.Com is part of Amazon.Com. Target pays Amazon, just as Borders Books & Toys R Us do. Shouldn't he be suing Amazon or all of these companies?
Third: The portions of the ADA that deal with websites generally deal with Government websites. Can he please sue the FBI, the CIA, and the White House? Last I checked, none of those sites passed the ADA checks. - Mediaright, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You know, usually I'd say that this suit is stupid, but if you're a huge company like Target, you should have made things accessable by now. Hey, I'm blind and if I was a big Target user, and I couldn't use the site, I'd be pretty pissed.
- gizm0duck, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20Using websites is a privilege and not a civil right...
- bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18You kids are retarded. The Americans with Disabilities act is there to help people that have disabilities use real-world things. A lot of people like to buy stuff on the Internet, and a lot of people like to shop at Target. The fact that Target's site isn't accesible to the blind is a frikkin joke
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"Programming to standards supports accessability. I don't have a problem with this lawsuit. A giant company like Target should make their website accessable."
WHY? Target is a private business, they can choose to sell to whoever they want. Should I sue a women's clothing store because they don't carry mens cloths? Or a steakhouse because I'm a vegetarian and they don't sell tofu? If this were a public institution (say a public library website) then sure sue away.
But it's not. It's a privately owned company! Should they make efforts for their site to be accessible via site readers and whatnot, of course, it's good business and good PR. Should they be REQUIRED to with threat of lawsuit? NO. If this guy can't use the service offered by Target maybe he should shop somewhere else.
This is one case where I hope the Goliath ruthlessly crushes David and countersues him for all their legal expenses. - gluconeogenesis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Many states have very broad public accommodation laws. Doing a lot of business in a state by selling on the internet instead of a brick-and-mortar store shouldn't allow anyone to avoid those laws.
Considering how easy it is to make html accessible to the visually impaired when properly implemented, I support the suit. Too many splashy webpages focus on flash and other "form over substance" crap. Maybe this will help people get back to basics. - frickindeal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I honestly hope the comments on this article are not representative of the intelligence of the greater digg community.
Yes, blind people use the internet. Yes, Target should code with consideration for the blind. Would you expect them to stop you at the door of their store because you were blind? How about a sign on the door of all Targets: "No Blind" (although most of you, based on your comments, would assume that meant the Venetians were out of stock).
We're not talking about having to bend over backwards to make the site compatible.
Braille on ATM machines? Gee, maybe I drive my blind friend to the ATM and he hops out and uses it. So hard to imagine? Or maybe he walks up to the machine. Some blind people have guide dogs, and move around very well in public.
Any blind people reading digg? I'm absolutely sure there are. Just because you have no knowledge of something, don't prove yourself an imbecile by commenting.
No Braille on price tags? That's why they want to use the website. Think about it.
Target "declined to modify its Web site". This wasn't a "let's sue and see if we can get some money" case. They negotiated since May 2005 to get the site changed.
I suppose none of you know anyone who's blind, and have no chance whatsoever of becoming blind yourself. Good for you. For the rest of the population who have consideration for those that are disabled, common sense and good business practice should have led Target to make it accessible in the first place. Why lock out customers?
I hate that it's going to have to be decided in the courts though. Precedent is a powerful thing. It may become difficult to control who has to be accessible and who doesn't. - G00mper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"WTF how the hell are blind people supposed to use the web?"
recon16: With a screen reader you ***** idiot.
Its unfortunate that a lawsuit is necessary, but thats the only way to get a big corporation to take care of *****. Hopefully this guy will win and other companies will take notice. It isn't very hard to get your website to work with screen readers. - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The blind advocates have done everything properly so far. First they negotiated, and then when Target declined to take any meaningful action, they sued.
Target is a company that does $50 billion a year in business. It might cost them $100,000 AT MOST to redesign the website. That's peanuts. If they were actually acting in their shareholders' interest, instead of basing their decision on some middle-managment lazy-ass's whim, they would have done it already.
The commenters here are unbelievable. Reading Digg at +2 is like reading Slashdot at -1. "Digg community" = 1/3 Little Green Footballs, 1/3 15-year old libertards who just read Atlas Shrugged, and 1/3 GNAA trolls. - orangemarmalade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5i would like to see a website targeted towards the blind
- schibs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@jasqwerty
Digg runs on...css, javascript, and html, with server side scripting...OMGzors its standards compliant!
I hardly see digg as Internet circa 1988. As long as you know what you're doing, standards compliance does not mean UI's that are *****. - jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FYI everyone, there is a large population of blind people on the Internet. I use to develop enterprise level website specifically for them. It is a REAL problem on the Internet, too.
- mkengstrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh, and to address the comments about why the guy is suing, and how our culture is sue-crazy: I'm sure he contacted Target many times to inform them that their website was not accessible, but they just blew him off. Target probably doesn't listen to anyone unless they have a lawyer next to them.
- mkengstrom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There are laws that demand that a website needs to be accessible to the blind (or rather, software that the blind use to read the site). It is *extremely* easy to implement these changes, so any webmaster who does not comply has only ignorance or laziness to blame.
The person suing Target is not suing because the website "doesn't allow the blind to see", they're suing because Target is in violation of the ADA laws by now making it accessible.
No digg - learn the facts! - kirkio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While I think it is impossible to make every website accesible to people with every disability (soon they're going to want braille versions of websites), it looks like these people just want defined image maps and alt text fields. I don't think its too big of a deal to change.
- ravenmuffin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Properly implemented web sites can be highly compatible with the screen readers which blind people use to turn words into audio.
- cyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll keep my opinions about lawsuits to myself, but http://target.com is ridiculous. As smilesman pointed out, there are things on their front page that have NO REASONABLE reason for being images, when they could be as effectively expressed in link tags (fully accessible).
One could argue that they save on bandwidth from repeat visitors by effectively caching the menu items. One image element is 1.93KB. The text to represent that comes in at 1/4 to 1/3 of that. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As a web designer for government funded agencies almost all my websites have to be accessible under section 508. I can honestly say that it creates almost no burden and the added attention to detail it entails makes all my websites better for the blind and seeing alike. The idea that it has a "chilling effect" on web development is ludicrous. Here are some likely benefits of making a site accessible:
1. Better search engine indexing
2. Better cross-browser capability
3. Better access to your site on mobile devices
4. Proper use of alt and title tags provides more info to blind AND sighted individuals (captions, etc)
5. Faster download times
6. Better access to those who prefer or are required to browse without javascript etc.
7. If you're thinking about accessibility you're more likely to consider other usability issues as well
8. Better accessibility to those with poor eyesight through scalable type etc.
To those of you who think this will ruin the web I ask you a serious question: Do you really think a little attention to detail will make web sites worse? - mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Should I sue a women's clothing store because they don't carry mens cloths? Or a steakhouse because I'm a vegetarian and they don't sell tofu? If this were a public institution (say a public library website) then sure sue away."
Very stupid analogies!
You can't possibly begin to compare specialized retail venues that have a niche to this issue. You'd be a moron/jackass for suing a specialty store that focuses on women's clothing for not selling 'mens cloths'[sic]. Same goes for the vegetarian one. Use some common ***** sense, I don't know any vegan or vegetarian that would be stupid enough to even think in the terms you proposed.
I love how so-called Compassionate Conservatives are really conservative with their compassion. We'll waste tremendous amounts of energy, money, and resources to save a fetus, but once it makes it out of the womb we'll forget about it. - allthewhile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does this mean that If I were to use my website to make ANY kind of money, it should be accessible to the blind? That's the kind of slippery slope we're talking about here. I know there are a million web2.0 strict xhtml standards fanboys out there, but I honestly don't have all the time NOR the effort to get everything up to standards. Yes, you heard me, it takes a great designer to make everything compliant. Mom and pops don't have the money nor the time.
- Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Welcome to target.com
This site requires an eyesight.
If you can see the applet below then you have the latest blindness plugin installed." - spectre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2' "Target will most likely submit to a code rework and put their sites into a CSS/HTML framework"
What exactly would you say it is constructed of now? Fusilli pasta?'
Pasta? No. Tag Soup, possibly. But whatever it is, it's not compliant to any standard I've ever heard of. A cursory *view source* can prove that in a heartbeat. This page is a perfect example of low-rung web design. When you create a text-only content menu using one big image and an image map, you are screaming for help. I hope this guy wins the suit and the judge orders the developers back to school. - kiwijt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow, I cannot believe the ignorance of some of the people who read this site. I can't wait to see Target get sued. In fact, I would like to see most sites sued for lack of in accessibility. Believe it or not, the blind in this country are a major buying force for on-line retailers. It's so easy to make accessible websites that I have come to believe that these companies hire mid-decent hacks right out of high school.
- tymme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2'Suing TV makers because blind can't see the TV' or 'deaf people suing record labels' is plain idiotic. You don't expect to see a TV image when blind, you don't expect to hear music the same way when deaf. Web pages are so easy to fix, you should expect to be able to navigate them.
Talking did nothing, so attacking the pockets will get their attention. - licoricewhip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Gosh. It can truly be said that I didn't see this one coming.
- babbling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Did you know that search engines usually analyse websites by looking at pretty much the same things a blind person would notice on the page? In general, it is a good idea to make websites accessible to the blind. In doing so, you automatically improve them for a lot of other purposes.
I'm not visually impaired, but I think I would rather use websites that have been made so that visually impaired people can use them. I think those websites would be far less annoying than your typical Flash-based crap. I also like that I will be able to browse such websites with text-only browsers like Lynx.
Obviously this will get unreasonable if every single website is forced to comply with W3 standards for accessibility, but big websites like Target's should have to comply. - staan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Headline is pretty bad. I don't think this is a civil rights issue, but I support the lawsuit.
And to all you screeching brats who obviously don't understand the first thing about this: I hope your eyes are burnt out while emulating stunts you see on television. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hope that none of you who attack this lawsuit so viciously ever suffer from a disability. If you do I hope you receive more respect and support than what you show to others. The ADA seeks to provide a minimum level of accommodation to those who need a little help and it is a very small price to pay. The sacrifices we have to make to meet those accommodations are small and have an uncanny ability to help EVERYBODY, not just those with disabilities.
Wheelchair ramps help those with strollers. Closed captioning is handy when you need to mute the TV or in a noisy bar. Making a web site accessible to screen readers can help those using mobile devices to access the web. Making things accessible benefits all of us, and companies that refuse to do so are shooting themselves in the foot.
I'd love to see them win this lawsuit, but I doubt they will. Section 508 only applies to government agencies and those receiving government funds. The ADA was ruled to not apply to websites in 2002 after a similar lawsuit against Southwest Airlines. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html
The ADA needs to be amended to include websites. - 2ndDairy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't believe how stupid some people here are. There's a large percent of web users that are blind or otherwise disabled and they shouldn't be discriminated against just because some moron web developer won't take the time to comply with accessibility standards. If someone was born or became disabled, that doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to live a normal life. If you want to discriminate against disabled people, why don't we just segregate races, too? "That damn civil rights movement; they just want to inconvenience everybody else because they aren't as good as white people."
- dmorack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jasqwerty said:
'I like my graphics, flash, and Java. Yah, text is nice, but snazy, eye-catching design, WHICH IS WHAT YOU HIRE A DESIGN FIRM FOR, is what sells people. Yah, it sucks to be blind, but it also sucks to be deaf or lame, but somehow sites can still use audio and mouse movements perfectly fine.'
*sigh* The changes can be made without changing your precious eye candy. I pray that you, nor anyone in your immediate family ever goes blind.
I guess I'm the only one who thinks all that eye candy gets in the way of functionality. Take Amazon (I wonder if they are compliant?). The site is very well laid out and very easy to use. The links to the different departments are text.
I go to target.com and I find that everything below the Weekly Ad link on the left is unclickable in Firefox (with Adblock Plus off). Why does that text have to be an image? It would look perfectly fine as text and would work in many browsers, including Lynx. A screen reader could read it with no problem. Maybe that's why I've never bought anything from target.com. - Saltire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jack09: "The web is a visual medium."
No, its a TEXTual medium, HTML = HyperTEXT Markup Language, it has been turned in to a visual medium to the exclusion of those less fortunate that yourself, and yet HTML is perfectly capable of providing both with a useful experience. No, I don't want return to text-based browsers.
I wish people would at least try to read past the first few comments and learn an alternative perspective to their own. Accessible websites is not about blind people, its about EVERYONE. If you're able bodied, try browsing the internet without your mouse and see how easy it isn't. And yes, Digg is bad in this respect too, possibly why there are so few visually impaired people here to explain this. And noone will sue because there's no money in it making it pointless. But Digg, please, at least try?
Perhaps we could Digg comments too, let the stupid sink in an abyss of their own ignorance. - betona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure are a lot of 'experts' here... All those who have used the JAWS reader, raise your hand.
My group just went through this last year and it's not so simple as slapping up some alt tags. It also requres careful use of a number of things such as header tags (which can conflict with style sheets) and a number of other things and really requires thought in the order of the code. Keep in mind that the major sites are built from objects that come from a variety of servers, a far cry from your common flat personal home page.
Oh, and for those of you who want to slam the U.S., we had to speed up our process (which was already in place) due to a complaint lodged against us in the UK using some EU requirements, and had to represent ourselves before a court in London. We got it all done ahead of schedule and the complaint was dropped. - m99stump, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4You guys who are mocking this do not know enough about the web I guess.
There is plenty of tech to help the blind use the web, programs read the screen to them and they can often speak actions to get things done. Target has no excuse. - spectre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I worked at a gov facility for over 5 years.. and guess what.. none of the web designers, developers, etc. share your view.. but alas.. it is the gov that will give this wind. They wanted web apps.. so I wrote them.. they required section 508.. so as vague as that piece of ***** law was.. we met it.. but guess what I did? Nothing... applications were exempt. Your concept of "correct" design is arguable on so many grounds..."
Obviously you don't code HTML/CSS very often. Making a page VERY accessible is so easy and simple, it hurts. It actually takes LESS work for a good designer to get an accessible site working than it does to just slap some crap together. It's certainly easier to maintain. I've been designing for 8 years for the web and I rarely here a professional whine about making a site accessible, granted you mentioned that you work for the feds and they aren't known for making web sites properly, even though it's actually the law. If you work with designers that complain about making compliant sites, I'd suggest you get them fired and hire an actual professional instead of someone who used to design Geocities sites. - smilesman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While I think it's a crazy lawsuit, it's just as crazy that their web designer used this image:
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/16/00/10/00/14/13/20/100014132001.gif - StandardsGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't believe the really dumb comments in this thread and many more besides. Did anyone read the details before posting an inane comment?
1. NFB raise issues over inaccessibility of Target.com in May 2005 - nothing is done.
2. Further talks in January - nothing is done. NLB file a class-action suit (requires a named claimant and unfortunately provides ammo to the critics because he happens to be a student so he's obviously on the take, right?), the suit also has another 50,000 names behind it.
3. Unfortunately, NLB and other interest groups have tried reason and now have had to resort to the big stick approach of legislation - which is why it's there in the first place - to safeguard everyone's basic rights (individual or corporate).
4. Sueing for money is not the aim - raising awareness is. Already within a day of this news being published by webstandards.org they had fixed the image-based submit buttons. So you could say the tactic is working - a hell of a lot of people are talking about it that's for sure ;)
We are talking about website accessibility - not blind people wanting to drive cars, see the views in national parks or other stupid "sue everyone" culture comments.
Website accessibility is a basic human right - why should someone with a disability be penalised by having to pay more for goods at a less competitive retailer? Website accessibility makes sound business sense because more people can buy stuff from you. Customers win, retailer win and shareholders win. Oh, and you get a warm feeling inside for being ethical and milk that for as much PR as possible...
Website accessibility is not just about blind people. With your arm in a cast have you tried using the mouse? It's hard, but knowing keyboard shortcuts I can get by much better. At Target.com you can't do that - you must use a mouse. Escalate that short-term condition to arthritis, paraplegia, stroke victim etc - you can see the point I'm making. It can affect us all at any time in any number of ways. Then there are those with cognitive and hearing difficulties to consider also.
Website accessibility is achievable and "free" if it's ingrained into your development framework and personal development / professionalism. For Target, they will need to spend some time (and hence money) to put appropriate alt text in place and ensure that any coding techniques that place a barrier on keyboard access are replaced or amended. I can almost guarantee that this will be done before this goes to court because that's how it is.
Business owners including their IT managers need to be aware of the legal issues (the lawsuit and resulting news will help), understand the business benefits (more customers!) and learn what to look for and ask of a developer they hire for any redesigns. - jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Do you people live under a rock? I'm not blind and I don't even know anyone that is blind, but I know that 1)this is a law just like having handicap ramps. 2) making a website accessable for screen readers won't make it ugly. It won't even take that much effort. Here's an article from 2002 talking about it http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashmxmoving/
Here's an example from macromedia themselves http://weblogs.macromedia.com/accessibility/archives/2004/10/my_favorite_acc.cfm
this isn't that hard and it is something people have been talking about for a while. - eastshores, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The good news is that accessibility does not cost anything extra. It is better known as modern web design. Or good web design. Or, uhh, doesn't-everyone-code-pages-like-this? web design.
Hire good designers who know what they're doing and you wouldn't have this lawsuit in the first place."
I worked at a gov facility for over 5 years.. and guess what.. none of the web designers, developers, etc. share your view.. but alas.. it is the gov that will give this wind. They wanted web apps.. so I wrote them.. they required section 508.. so as vague as that piece of ***** law was.. we met it.. but guess what I did? Nothing... applications were exempt. Your concept of "correct" design is arguable on so many grounds... - RevnCliffie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I always find it interesting that those who have all the advantages and all the blessings, sight, hearing etc. Tell those who don't have those things to just get over it, sit at home and suck it up. If there is a way to make things accessible then do it. And to those so enjoying throwing around words like crips and having a laugh at the expense of those who just want to have a shot at some of the things you were blessed with....It may not fit totally with my theology but Karma can be a bitch.
- atf487, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, umm. If everyone can code a blind-accessible website, then it should be done.
Personally, I have no idea on how to have a blind person use a computer, and still get a decent experience out of it. It just seems like a waste of time to me; but if someone could shed light on it then that would be nice. - Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"There is no need to use different keys for drive-up and walk-up ATMs. It's cheaper to use the same keys during manufacturing for both. It allows an ATM to be used in either configuration."
Fair enough. Even for a walk-up ATM... how do they navigate the on-screen menus and check their receipt or what bills they're getting? Unless there's a blind button I don't know of that announces your balance to the guy behind you, or potentially over your shoulder. I may sound naive here but I don't see how it's possible. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1******************
pHr34kY wrote: My web site has been done entirely using red/green contrasting... Why? because it looks cool and I don't really care if colorblind guy can't read it. I always place functionality and practicality before accessibility.
******************
In one breath saying you value "functionality and practicality" and in the next saying you don't care if people can use your site is hypocritical. It would only have taken two minutes of your time to run your site through a colorblind filter like http://colorfilter.wickline to check your site. Incidentally it looks fine, which shows you don't have to give up anything for good site design. Even if none of your visitors are colorblind (unlikely) filtering for colorblindness helps ensure you've used design elements like contrast to their full benefit. There are rarely trade-offs--accessibility is a good thing for EVERYONE.
**************
tallin wrote: A lot of people are using the argument "it's the law." Just because it's a law doesn't make it right...Yes, the world would be a wonderful place if all websites were blind accessible, but making it law that they have to be is ridiculous.
*************
I can only imagine how all of you must hate the Americans with Disabilities Act. How dare businesses be forced to make any concessions for those who are less fortunate. Stop for just a second though, and ask yourself if closed captioning, handicapped parking, and aisles wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair have really impacted your life that much. Now think about how much it means to those who already suffer and would be even further disconnected from our world if it wasn't for those concessions. Is it really such a high price to pay? Would requiring Target to add a few alt tags and redesign some of their processes really hurt you?
It might be costly for Target to rework their website to be accessible now. It would have only cost them pocket change to design it right from the beginning--and it probably would have made the site better for the rest of us. I hope Target loses this lawsuit, although I don't think they will for reasons I've already outlined. - coachace, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This could be a precedent that would eventually adversly effect web business. Blind people just don't see the big picture...
- Brackhar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The point is valid, Target should try to incorporate software into their website that allows the handicapped to access it. It just makes good business sense.
However, the suit is not valid. This is akin to walking into a library and then suing the state because the library does not have a copy of every of its items in brail. - brlewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This suit is totally reasonable. The hundreds of diggers flaunting their ignorance in the comments above could clue in just by browsing with image loading off. The blind users aren't asking for advanced features like navigation-skipping links; they just want alt tags on the "add to cart" button and anything else essential for checkout. Normally this could be done in a minute. The target.com site is so convoluted it would probably take 10 minutes, but all this nonsense about needing to raise prices to pay for the work is unwarranted.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What people seem to be missing: accessibility costs money! Even on the web -- you really have to sit there and test your site in each way it's going to be presented. Audio only testing would almost certainly DOUBLE development time for most sites, and hence double costs.
Could we use this same logic to force the asian/hispanic market 3 blocks down to print all their pamphlets in english? And then spanish, french, greek, and farsi? Too bad they'll have to double the price of lychee to pay for all those translators...
Face it. Having independant corporations to offer advertisements and communications in a manner accessible to me is NOT a civil right, and not even a particularly good idea. Companies will make data available in other formats whenever it's cost effective -- southern californians will make note of spanish translations of almost everything in stores these days. - soupisgoodfood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All my sites are accesable to the visually impared and alternative devices. It's not that bloody hard, and it generally improves the usablity of the site, too. People need to quit whining and grow a ***** soul. I bet every single one of the people here that are whining about this would quickly change their tune if they ever lost their eye-sight.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Their written pamplets are also inaccessable to the blind. Bastards!
This is terrible. Success in this realm would require that corporations provide all their communications, from credit card applications to websites to reciepts in method accessible to everyone, meaning every language, disability, etc. The costs would be insane.
YOU must adapt YOURSELF to the WORLD. You cannot possibly adapt the world to yourself. -
Show 51 - 100 of 260 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 