What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.275 Comments
- Safis, on 10/12/2007, -24/+232What? I mean offence to the blind, but since when must a website have accommodations for any disability? That's rediculous. Sure, they'll get more customers if it's more accessible, but to be SUED for NOT having it?
- Safis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+179Oops, I meant to write "I mean NO offence to the blind". That's a pretty significant typo...
- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 10/12/2007, -16/+154In Denver, the public transportation company had to equip all it's buses with wheelchair lifts (which cost the tax payers TONS) instead of providing on-demand, at your door, free service to the handicapped because they wanted to be treated the same as everybody else. Well, sorry to tell you this but YOU AREN'T THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE! Time to deal with it and quit being in denial!
- AllenS, on 10/12/2007, -24/+135@Safis
I kinda liked it the way you wrote it before. - KineticFlow, on 10/12/2007, -13/+86This is ridiculous..
I also, do not mean to offend any sight-impaired,
but I don't think publishers are required to provide braille version for everything,
why should webmasters be required to provide text only versions? - TzuTze, on 10/12/2007, -8/+72If they sue websites they could also sue publishers of books (no blind version), kellogs for not offering a cornflakes box that suits the need of blinds and citys for not offering signs for blinds. Ridiculous..
- signalguy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+75I'm only digging this so people can see how terrible our courts have gotten.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -18/+67Listen up kiddies:
This only applies to COMMERCIAL WEBSITES that SELL STUFF. The reason for this is simple: if someone buys something from you, they damn well ought to be able to navigate the site in case they need to change an order, contact customer service, complain, etc.
This does not apply to personal sites or sites by foreign companies, nor does it apply to commercial sites hosted by a another site (ie, Cafepress and the ilk), since they handle this for you.
It's like this: should the internet be restricted the IE, or should websites be accessible to FF users too?
And for you ***** who still aren't getting it: the browser for blind users compiles the list of shortcuts by using the links embedded in the page and the corresponding text or captions as the labels. On sites like target where all the links are uncaptioned pictures or javascript-based, there isn't anything to use.
YOU DON'T NEED TO CHANGE ANYTHING. Just keep on using text links, and you'll be fine. - Acolyte357, on 10/12/2007, -10/+56"This is the same as stores providing wheelchair access, disabled parking spaces, accessible toilets, etc." No it's not. Web sites are not required to follow state law and the fed. ADA does not cover anything close to this. It will get overturned in an appeal.
- andrethegiant, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44Recoculous... This is like deaf people suing a band because they can't hear their music.
- Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37"This only applies to COMMERCIAL WEBSITES that SELL STUFF. The reason for this is simple: if someone buys something from you, they damn well ought to be able to navigate the site in case they need to change an order, contact customer service, complain, etc."
If they can't navigate the site to begin with how are they going to buy something from you? - CaspianXI, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33I'm suing sites that aren't Firefox compatable.
- sdo1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31In other news, the Louvre museum in Paris has been sued because blind patrons are not allowed to touch The Mona Lisa.
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30*****. Beethoven couldn't even hear his OWN MUSIC, you don't hear him crying about it... But he couldn't hear himself crying about it either... cause he's deaf. OH NO. I'm stuck in an infinite loop!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30How do I mark this as inaccurate? Let me count the ways.
1. The title makes no distinction between business sites and personal websites. You can still have a visual only website if you want.
2. Target has not been SUCCESSFULLY SUED. They have been sued, and a judge dismissed Target's motion for dismissal. There has been NO judgement on the lawsuit.
Seriously...it is ***** submissions like this that make it to the front page (for obvious reasons) which is why the "Digg Gamers" are turning this site into *****. Becuase like most of hte big users, OBKenobi submits mainly absolute ***** and offers no real value to the site. But he still gets to the front page. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25"if you were blind wouldn't you still like to surf the internet?"
No. Without porn the Internet is useless. I'm just wasting time here until I recover from the last session. - reject, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23So, does this mean we have to start making websites with a visual-only or audio-only alternative for our illiterate friends?
- slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28@KineticFlow
Yeah I don't think they'll be offended by your vision-requiring post there, buddy. - barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -16/+33it's pretty sad that organizations like that have to stoop to sueing web developers to make some money.
- pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25This is Insanity. We as a country are on a toboggan ride to hell.
- jguerry, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21but what if you only sell stuff for non-impaired people?
:) - lowerlogic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20while they're at it, they might as well start sueing radio stations and telephone-based tech support for not having a deaf versions.
- qwertydvorak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23@Hydroxyl : actually, if it is anything like what is going on in my city, it will be especially for the small businesses. here the local disability club has been going around to small businesses and checking to see if they are fully compatible with the americans with disabilities act. if they don't check out on even one thing, they sue the business. they do this with about 5 businesses at a time. they also sue for legal costs so they can keep strongarming other businesses. but then again, what else are they going to do, they are disabled. lots of free time on their hands since they are disabled.
*climbs up on soapbox* personally i think these people should be happy to have access to any business, and the ability to get out of the house at all. if they had lived just 100 years ago they would be beggars on the street. besides they are also allowed to reproduce which is just muddying up the gene pool (for the majority of people on this site that believe in evolution) survival of the fittest and all... mod away ! ! ! - donatj, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23I agree, if I'm not required to even have a website, why should I be required to have it set up in any manner? What if I wanted to create a website that required a brail reading machine to use, would I be sued by the non-blind? Its this kind of "omg, they get a convience but I don't" thing thats running america into the ground.
- dakboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23@OBKenobi: It's not devs that need to be aware of it. It's the people writing the site requirements and management admitting that they actually do have to spend money on that requirement.
- heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I'm probably going to get dugg down for this, but personally I'm not comfortable seeing the blind completely cut off from the web because some company is too cheap to code a website that works with widely-available accessibility software. I'd bet dollars to donuts making the necessary changes is easier than coding around IE's well-known quirks.
Think about how much you use the internet on a daily basis and imagine being cut off from it forever.
I don't really know what the answer to this dilemma is, but I know it's not "***** em, they're blind." - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Yes, its good business and good PR, but being sued for not doing it? I think THATS the offensive part.
- LucasVB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Start here: http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/Overview.html
- danielabrantes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I hate flash tecnology, but If I want to make a web page... I do it the way I want.
- Andrico4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14My website has to be wheelchair accessable?
- mulletvampire, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Don't understand why you're all so offended by this. It's not difficult to make sites accessible for screen readers -- typically it just means using proper markup and alt-tagging. It's just good business, and good PR, for any significant website to be as accessible as reasonably possible.
- MTigerV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11a little off-topic but,
does anyone know where i could find guidelines to make a site accesible to the blind? I think this is a frivolus suit, but if it's just a few edits i wouldn't mind doing it. - vamp1regr4ve, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15i think its pretty ***** bogus that you actually used the word bogus.
- altgenetics, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Although, I can understand peoples frustrations, I feel it is necessary to demystify some of these myths.
A) Publishers are not necessarily required to provide an "accessible" version, but, some one is required to provide an accessible copy, IE. the library of congress, or the "recording for the blind and dyslexic" program hosted by the library of congress, and other organizations.
B) Your blog, that no one but your friends reads, is OK, you don't have to do anything for an audience your most likely not going to obtain in the first place. It is only commercial, and large organization sites that truly must abide to this law. For example, target or wal-mart are corporations, but, universities and cities are organizations that are also required to abide by this federal law.
C) the applications that the visually impaired use to access not only the Internet but everything that is usable on a PC are not crappy out of date integrated XP applications. They are tools that cost any were from $750 to $2,000 to own. And, yes, most visually impaired pay for these applications "out-of-pocket"
D) As much as you would like to think that disabled people are a degenerate version of a "normal" human being, that simply must accept their existence in this "harsh and cruel" world, you are sadly mistaken. Talk to any IT personal over the age of 35 and my guess is over half will tell you they have trouble seeing the screen. As they get older, and YOU as well, the way you will use the computer IS GOING to change and you will want that computer to be able to read you the text you can no longer read your self. Or you could simply accept the fact that your at a loss and find your corner to live in until you die...whichever works for you.
And if you call BS on any thing I have said please check out:
www.freedomscientific.com -apps for the blind
www.zoomtext.com - my personal choice of accessibility
www.humanware.com - apps and hardware for the blind
www.rfbd.org - recordings for the blind
www.w3.org/wai/
Please think before you speak, as you may one day be in my shoes, with no choice but to fight for the light that is knowledge. - Clbck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16So can we sue for not having websites accessible to people who are in coma's?
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I'm tired of having pseudo laws created by people sueing.
Us little guys can barely move in any direction for fear of being sued. Not for fear of losing when sued - that's irrelevant. Being dragged into legal proceedings alone is enough to drive a small business into debt and have is spiral into oblivion.
It's 'legal' mafia style intimidation. It is not "ILLEGAL" to make a site in flash, but I feel intimidated by the lawyers/mobsters behind this to adhere to their demands.
That is a threat, not a law.
Furthermore, why isn't the burden on Macromedia to make flash a more open standard so browsers can search? Better yet, why not make the burden on some enterprising company who wants to build a software based full screen OCR with link checker for the vision impared.
Innovation > Legal Threats
(i'm talking to you too RIAA, Apple, Patent Lawyers, MPAA, and any other spineless lawyers or legal departments) - uptown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Wonder how tubgirl will possibly comply....
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Incorrect, buddy boy. Websites are required to follow state laws if 1) the company is located in the state, or 2) the site does business within the state.
2) is the sticky point here; most courts have so far recognized this as a physical presence within the state (ie, a brick-and-mortar store), not simply shipping goods into the state. - chan0429, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9To correct the original poster's description of the article. Target has NOT been successfully sued. Just that their wish to throw out the class action lawsuit has been denied.
Digg should have a delete comment option in the edit. Just noticed someone already stated this. - thatautguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12It's amazing and sad how the usually oh-so-liberal digg crowd turns into a bunch of jerks when it comes to a topic like this. The ADA is there for a reason: to provide equal access for everyone - and that includes access to information. According to most people here it's obviously OK to simply exclude blind people from the information age - because god forbid we go a little bit out of our way to make websites accessible.
"All men are created equal" - for digg users that apparently only applies to people without a disability. The comments below are really just shameful and disgusting. (and no, I don't care if I get dugg down for this) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I may be going blind in the future but by that time I'll stop using the internet all together. It's probably better for me anyway :D
- mikedoise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8My name is Michael Doise. I come to Digg for a lot of information on technology, and to hear what people have to say about it. I have read what people have said here, and have my own opinion of this. If you can't allready tell, i am a mostly blind person myself. what you seem normally on an eye chart has to be enlarged 800 times for me to see the same. I am a 22 year old college student who goes to Austin Community College in Austin Texas, and I am a web designer/programmer in my spare time. I have tought myself many different programming languages, such as BASIC and Tcl, and have extensive knowlage on computer repair and computer building. I have obtained my CompTia A+ and Network+ through just knowing how things work and feel. no vision required in what I do. When I design a web site, I think of first how it will look and feel to the non-sighted, but then I try and see if I can make it visually appealing to the signted. I am even working on a method of using AJAX where new updates to the page structure will be re-read to thee person who is blind. It is my personal thought that the Target website, without spending any more money, could have made their web site accessable. This wouold have prevented any reason for the National federation of the blind to step in My only request to the web community. Will someone do something about these damn picture text things for confirming login or coment posts on many sites? they are annoying to people like me but oh well lol.
- gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I wonder how it affects a site like digg that makes heavy use of the visual robot checker. How would you redesign the robot test so that a blind person could could pass it, an audio test would work I suppose.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12How about suing video games cause they dont have a discriptive addon:
CS:
"you are running down a hall"
"you ran into a garbage can"
"you have been owned again" - ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"Hey I developed a new website technology that delivers content in a new and powerful way!"
"Is it compatible with outdated archaic text to speech software built into XP?"
"No."
"I'm suing you cause I'm blind!"
Idiots! - ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Arrr. Last I checked, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines were more sort of... guidelines... than actual rules.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6hints for making you site accessible.. (they dontlike radio buttons)
http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=57&TopicID=167
an easier to read one
http://www.blind.state.ia.us/access/tips.htm - samk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Market INACCURATE.
The judge HAS NOT ruled on the lawsuit itself yet. He's just decided not to dismiss the suit.
Absolutely false statement: "Visual-Only Websites Are Now Illegal" - agentf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If only we could sue for making UGLY flash sites
- barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7if you were blind would you want web developers to pay huge amounts of money for not making their site useable by you?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 266 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is