What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
14 Comments
- blackfog, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6Wow, that's a scary precedent to set there...puts SO many large corporations at risk, I would've rather seen Target battle it out rather than encourage this sort of behavior. I mean you have to question who was really damaged? How is preventing (inadvertent or not) the sale of a good in one medium while still being accessible in another worth being punished for. The product(s) are still available and it seems like a victimless crime. People with handicaps can't do everything a non-handicapped person can, that's why they call it a handicap! Seems like the business is just being punished for not having a "fully" featured website, not discriminatory practice.
- pyyhkala, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3NFB 2008 Banquet Address Video
The Urgency Of Optimism
http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/Video/2008_Banquet_S ... - reined, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2and they'll come at night to cut off your balls!!!
- zpchrish, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3There's a guy in my town who makes a handsome living going around and finding businesses that aren't ADA compliant and suing them into compliance and a fee for his trouble. This unfairly burdens small businesses without providing any real benefit to handicapped people. Imagine that on a scale times a bazillion.
- Ebjius, on 08/28/2008, -3/+5They won't know what hit them...
(I'm terrible I know) - cowboy77061, on 08/28/2008, -5/+6that is ***** stupid. i hope these blind people get punched in the face.
- serif69, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1No worries, my friend. Those of us web designers who actually care about the quality of the sites we produce already follow the WCAG guidelines, which are more stringent than the conditions of this settlement.
- stinkymonkey, on 08/28/2008, -2/+3So all websites that sell anything must be careful of adding alt tags. Why this method? Why not another method? Its basically telling a corporation, you must do this because this is the technology we use currently. So if using alt tags changes to using a different technology in the future, is the website supposed to update itself based on the whimes of what a certain group wants. How about other people who need larger print or how about color blind people? This sets a bad president and a slippery slope.
The better way is to work with target and offer a "blind certification" of sorts. Meaning, celebrate the fact that target.com is blind accessible. Use it as a marketing ploy to get blind people to go to the target website, rather then other websites. But it has to be voluntary. If a website doesn't want to make money from blind people, well, that is their lose. - reined, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1you know, they can't even code proper, but they want the cash, we don't need them on the metaverse!, i know it's bad, but i wish them to get blind for a lapse of time(i am too good there!), they would learn!!!
- pyyhkala, on 08/28/2008, -3/+4I applaud the NFB in this action. The blind community expects to be able to fully participate in society. Where as the internet is an integral part of life in America, the blind are entitled to access to this channel. Just as you cannot open a shop, a restaurant, a hotel, a theatre or other so-called "place of public accommodation," with physical barriers. You could not, as an example, open a restaurant that only had steps as a means for entry and exit because it would discriminate against people in wheelchairs. Blind people have civil rights just as do others. The blind of this nation will not stand for accesibility only if "they," "feel like it." the blind are entitled to full participation in all aspects of society including technology and the internet. Congress recognized the right of people with disabilities to enjoy full and equal participation in society whether or not reasonable accommodations are necessary in the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act! The ADA does not say that people who are blind, or who have other disabilities, can get access only if whatever the entity is in question feels like providing that accessibility or accommodation. The law sets forth compulsory civil rights. What good would civil rights laws be if it were only to apply "if you feel like it?" lol Are African Americans only permitted full civil rights "if you feel like it?" How about women?
I don't really understand the disconnect we have here? The law says you have to make things accessible, and sometimes that means you do things differently than you otherwise might to ensure that accesibility.
There is no reason why Target could not have voluntarily made its web site accessible when the accessibility concern was raised. Alt-tags are the technology in place today, and until something else comes along, that is what should be used. A web site that has alt-tags can still have graphics, so in a sense, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Ironically the problems the blind have are not really technical issues. Most web sites, products, and services could be made nearly or fully accessible. The problem we have is more of a lack of will on the part of corporate America to recognize the blind as first class citizens. The blind community isn't going to stand around and let entities treat us as second or third class citizens.
You can read much more about this on The Blind Access Journal:
http://blindaccessjournal.com
This blog chronicles both successes and failures that the blind have had in our quest for accessibility.
Another example of a web site that is not accessible is:
http://myspace.com
The site employs a visual only captcha which is used as part of the registration process. There are alternatives to visual only captcha, such as audio captcha, but the site has refused to incorporate these changes. There may be other areas of MySpace that are not accessible but this is one key area I know about. This is another case that could be cooking in the kitchen so to speak. If sites like MySpace refuse to make their offerings accessible, they shouldn't be surprised if they get sued.
Other examples of accessibility issues involve the use of Flash without coding it so that it is accessible. Screen readers like
http://hj.com/jaws
will say "1 button," "2 button," etc. if they encounter Flash without tagging similar to an alt-tag.
Another example would be say a restaurant web site that displays its menus as an image rather than text. A screenn reader using either text to speech or refreshable Braille cannot read an image, and thus the blind person is denied access to that restaurants menu. Just as people in wheelchairs aren't going to stand for not being able to access restaurants because of poor inaccessible design, the blind are not going to sit around on the sidelines and miss out on opportunities because of web design that needlessly excludes us from full participation in whatever business that web site might be involved in.
In conclusion, the blind community is tired, very tired in fact, of corporate America ignoring our accessibility needs, and we hope this $6,000,000 settlement serves as a wake up call to the IT and corporate communities!
The NFB is a true leader in these civil rights matters, and we have successfully won our civil rights in the technology and other spaces before. For example, the NFB and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts just entered in to a settlement agreement with Cardtronics regarding full accessibility to their ATM machines:
http://www.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=19 ...
We in the NFB and the blind community are happy to work with corporate America, but if they stonewall and refuse to budge on these important civil rights matters, we will not just sit on the side lines. Three examples of companies that in fact did quickly and proactively address inaccessible visual only captcha are:
http://twitter.com/jack
and
http://getsatisfaction.com
and
http://feedburner.com
I personally worked with these 3 organizations on behalf of the blind community, and I'm pleased to say they were responsive. Thus there was no need to contemplate or take any sort of adversarial action. - serif69, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1Why this method? How about because that's what's outlined in the WCAG that every new site should follow anyway? http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
It's all taken care of. If you are a web designer worth your salt, you'd already know this, and your sites are already fully accessible to screen readers, people who need larger type, and color blind people. So suck it up and get on the bandwagon. - reined, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1you are a ***** pimp, get off!.
- reined, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1those inhumane and selfish (people?), are not blind from sight, but blind of mind!, i could become violent and use acid!.
- reined, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1if they can't properly code an XHTML page then they don't deserve the web!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is