Web Accessibility Gets a Boost In California Court

The Register is reporting on developments in a California court case pitting blind users against the retailer Target over the lack of accessibility of Target.com. (We discussed the matter on two occasions last year.) The case is being brought under a federal statute, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and two California laws that are somewhat broader. Even though Target has made improvements to the site since losing the first phase in court, the judge has just ruled that the case is eligible for class-action status. The end result could be mandated accessibility for for all Web sites reachable by visually impaired users in California.

acronyms.

The Register is reporting on developments in a California court case pitting blind users against the retailer Target over the lack of accessibility of Target.com.

That's they get for using a WYSIWYG editor to make their website.

Re:

>> That's they get for using a WYSIWYG editor to make their website.

Ooh, wait until the plaintiffs discover this thing called flash.

> We've hit the JACKPOT people, look at this monstrosity, you cant use if you are blind. Let's sue.

Even if you aren't disabled

some sites are next to hopeless to use from a usability point of view.

Not only is the layout wildly different from site to site, but also the semantics. And sometimes the access to some services aren't in a menu at all but hidden on a specific page that you don't really think it would be.

Re:Even if you aren't disabled

some sites are next to hopeless to use from a usability point of view.

There's no way every last budget business website is getting redesigned as the result of a court case in California

My guess is that one of the questions which will start getting asked is "how do I block visually impaired users in California?"

Re:Even if you aren't disabled

Or how do I (reliably) block all users from California?

Re:

Button: "If you can't see this, click here"

This smacks of bullshit...

I'm getting more and more tired of both the liberals and the neo/publicans and all their fucking bullshit. What ever happened to that free market shit we were fed along with the 'land of the free' garbage? If you don't like something vote with your wallet. Don't fucking sue everything that makes your life a little more difficult. No-one *has* to use Target. No-one has to use a website they don't like. I think it's fucking lazy and shows this stupid sense of entitlement we seem to feel. Instead of supporting something better we try to coerce it into being the way we'd like. How fucked up is that? That's the kind of shit you do with your government, not your fucking lawn-chair supplier. Meanwhile we stew in a broth of litigious shit as our real freedoms are sold right out from under us.

Re:This smacks of bullshit...

Don't be an idiot. Do you think stores would build wheelchair ramps just to make a few extra dollars from the few people with wheelchairs who shop in their stores? Of course not. The inevitable result of the free market would be no stores having wheelchair ramps, because the market is too small to be worth it. And as a result, nobody with a wheelchair would be able to shop. We protect minority disability groups because it's more important that they be able to live life than that stores have complete and unregulated freedom to maximize their profit.

If Target makes 0.1% more profit this year, no one gives a crap. But if one million Americans who can use a wheelchair are suddenly able to live their lives, this makes a significant difference in the world. (And yes, blindness and business websites can be considered the same as wheelchairs and physical buildings, hence the analogy.) Leave your idealistic philosophy at home and consider the real-world impact of your ideas.

Re:

In fact, the inaccessable website is even more of a problem, since, as a sighted user, I wouldn't be aware of the problem and need blind people and others to make me aware by the use of lawsuits and other communications. Lawsuits are cheaper than an ad ca

Funny how /.'ers are libertarian until

We are no longer talking about the war on terra. Suddenly Big Government is good when it isn't a privacy issue. Slashdotters are so inconsistent. You all get riled up about a First Amendment or other YRO issue if it is a video game or something, but forcin

Re:This smacks of bullshit...

sorry, I don't post to cowards

It's your loss. In this case you might as well wave a white flag.

Re:

The government has already determined what they want, and the laws have already been written. The interpretation against new developments, as well as the enforcement, is being achieved through the lawsuits. This is how the law--and in particular ADA-styl

Fucking troll?

You might not like the way I'm expressing my opinion, but it's an opinion. That's something distinctly different then trolling and using the moderation system to quell opinion in contrast to that of your own is, aside from an idiotic form of censorship, an

Re:

Interesting dichotomy. You rail against a lawsuit designed to compel accessibility to their services, saying that the stores should be free to choose to cater to these people, but when moderators freely choose to reduce accessibility to your diatribe by moderating you down, you reverse yourself and demand equal respect and accessibility rather than shopping elsewhere for a more receptive audience (while denying Slashdot ad revenue by reducing its readership).

You do your cause no credit.

His "cause" is that no one should be forced to cater to the disabled at gunpoint, which is effectively what federal regulation is.

There's nothing in that philosophy that says it's not perfectly OK to publicly call out a bunch of jackass robot-head mods

Re:This smacks of bullshit...

I know. Let's open a white people only restaurant, and let people vote with their wallets whether they are willing to eat there.

Re:

And I bet your white, speaking up for the 'little' people eh? I'd say sure. Open a fucking racist restaurant. I won't go there, my friends won't go there, I won't shed a tear if the owners are harassed or otherwise have problems with business. But I don't

Re:This smacks of bullshit...

Goodness. Next thing you know, you'll have us being "separate but equal". When stores or institutions as large as Target violate the ADA or practice racist or sexist policies, it affects the whole neighborhood or the whole industry.

And yes, I wheel crippled people to restaurants and to doctor's appointments, I've taught blind and deaf relatives both practical matters and technical ones. Failure to make reasonable concessions to accessibility cuts them off from social, economic, and political opportunities. It's penny wise and pound foolish: a store as large as Target, which dominates the commerce in entire towns or neighborhoods, bears a legal and social responsibility to serve that entire community.

Re:

Catering to the needs of disabled people isn't only a choice, its usually backed by legislation. There are lots of modifications in place to benefit wheelchair users / mothers with prams and buggys. crossings tend to have a different paving texture making

I think you're trolling, but here's your answer.

And I'm not going to make a single "because it's morally right' argument.

Free enterprise works pretty well - when everyone decides to spend money in whichever way satisfies their greedy nature, resources get allocated fairly efficiently.

But this is not always the case. For example, if you run a manufacturing business that produces toxic chemical waste, depending on how greedy your nature is, you may choose to just dump your waste in the nearest river. While this works well for you in the short run, it works well for no one in the long run if all businesses operate that way because soon everything would be too polluted to use. So we have government regulations that say 'Hey, if you make waste, you have to pay to dispose of it properly', and then the costs of that get passed on to the consumers of the product that caused the generation of the waste in the first place.

Did you see how that worked? In this case, government regulation ENHANCES the proper allocation of resources, by making sure the entire costs of manufacturing a product is borne by those who use the product.

Legally mandated disability access works in a similar manner. For any given business, the direct cost to them of maintaining access for the disabled may not balance out just not accepting that business in the first place. But, if we don't require that all businesses make reasonable efforts to be accessible to the disabled, then very soon no businesses would be accessible to the disabled. And that's a problem for everyone - because now instead of having disabled people, who through reasonable accommodations made to them are independent productive members of society, we now have disabled people who are essentially locked up in their homes, unable to participate and contribute to society, where we then have to either divert our tax dollars to support them, or let them starve to death (or in the very least, let them out on the street to beg).

Secondary to that, disability access is a bit like health insurance. While most of us are not disabled CURRENTLY, it's quite possible something might happen where we become disabled in the future. An accident, a disease, or shit, we could just get old, and not be able to walk or see as well as we used to. So, as a society, by deciding to make reasonable accommodation for the disabled, we also ensure that in the event we ourselves become disabled in the future, access is available to us. We may not ever need it, but if we do, we'll be glad we have it.

Another point to note here is that web accessibility is NOT just about seeing-eye-dog-blind people. Some people can't see very well just because they get old and lose their vision. That's probably not as big a deal now because most older Americans don't use computers anyway, but in 20-30 years, it'll be quite important as the internet generation starts to lose their eyesight.

Re:I think you're trolling, but here's your answer

Your post is what happens when you don't identify the fundamentals.

A manufacturer who doesn't properly handle toxic waste is violating the rights of the persons upon whom the toxins impinge. Laws should identify those rights and devise a method for ensur

Re:

Browser support is one big sticking point I have with this. The problem is that web designers are supposed to support disabled people. Analogies may be made to wheelchair ramps and the like, but that's missing one key point: designers also have to support

Re:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Are you then advocating apathy as a method for positive change?

Since this is California...

I can't wait for a lawsuit against sites that require Internet Explorer to work correctly. Web access should be available to all browsers.

Target might do something surprising

How long until Target figures out that very few people actually use their website compared to the trouble of all these lawsuits. As has been mentioned by other posters, it's quite possibly a browser config and interpretation issue. So, these lawsuits might

how hard can this be?

I mean, aren't all online retailers doing exactly the same thing? Selling stuff. You have a database of stuff. Different fields, etc... you just plop them in a template. So you have a regular website template and one for disability. Is that so hard? The only problem is, that people don't think about these things upfront and it leads to bad design.

Which makes me think, do they have standards documents for creating a disability accessible website? What all is involved? And what about amazon's "look inside" function? There is no way a text to speech algorithm can read those books because they are images.

Re:

Yes, there's standards. They're probably imperfect, but this stuff is not hard; Target's got things like graphical buttons with no alt text, where the graphic is just a picture of some words. VERY easy to fix.

Re:how hard can this be?

>So you have a regular website template and one for disability. Is that so hard?

This seems to be a leading theme, presumably by people who do not make sites or make sites that don't work well with disability. The company I work for actually built a site for a foundation for blind people, and they provided a test panel to go through the motions, and a whole set of guidelines to go with it. Let start by saying it isn't just throwing another template at it. If you think you're coding in standards, nice div's and CSS all, and that it just requires throwing a template at it with less bling, think again. Essentially the "problem" is readers, and you'll have to cater for the basic, anal reader html parser. A whole lot of tags you thought were ok, suddenly turn out to be wrong, such as BR. The whole navigation design and design in general will fail, because it's not much fun going into a page for content and being read 50 links first. The whole way of logically setting up text areas and making sure it flows takes a lot of reconsideration. The testing and debugging takes a lot of time, and you -will- bumb into issues you just plainly did not consider because you are simply not blind. Then there's the CMS, and its users should not be able to break any of this. I can go on, but all in all it took about 150% of the time web site builders normally put in a site, complete with "basic" template. That is, if you want to do it 100% right.

Good for F/OSS Browsers?

I wonder what this will mean to all those Flash only and ActiveX Heavy sites out there that look like garbage on the screen will be legally mandated to clean the page up?

Conversely, could this be used to push some Ultra-proprietary Screen reader technology

Solution:

Blindness is not a disability, it is [wikipedia.org] a [hugereviews.com] superpower [wikipedia.org]!

I should totally be made a (highly-paid) part of their blood-sucking legal team.

just crowdsource it

http://pornfortheblind.org/ [pornfortheblind.org] is doing this with pornography sample clips already, the basic idea should apply to any site.

Federal Government Intrusion

I think this is the federal government intruding where they have no right to be. If Target doesn't wish to have blind customers purchase from their site, why is this business decision anybody else's business. I don't recall anywhere in the United States

Re:

I know that Libertarians like to pretend it isn't true, but there are some things that are good for society that would almost never happen under the free market. If 0.5% of Target's customers are blind (a decent estimate), it might not be profitable for T

Vision Impaired

The term you are looking for is "vision impaired", which means: people who have a lack of vision (blind) or have poor vision. The term "visually impaired" means: ugly.

Or there is the alternative

The end result could be mandated accessibility for for all Web sites reachable by visually impaired users in California.

Or it could begin a wave of website owners deciding "this shit isn't worth it", and they either turn off their site entirely or at least block known California IP ranges.

Re:Yay lowest common denominator

Why is it my job (metaphorically speaking) to ensure those who are disabled can use my facilities?

Because most people believe the disabled have a right to equal access to services as everyone, firstly because those who use assistive technologies have no choice and secondly it's not their fault. Not only that but there's really no excuse for designing an inaccessible site, it's not difficult, in fact in most cases it's easier. Inaccessible usually means Flash/Javascript/IE only sites, which not only stops access for the disabled but for those of us who hate Flash/Javascript/Internet Explorer too, it also implies the Web designer/developer is incompetent.

There are circumstances where it's impossible to cater for people using assistive technologies: like wheelchair access to listed buildings (not uncommon in Europe) or prohibitive cost for small businesses to provide wheelchair access, I don't think Web sites are one of them though.

Think of it this way: do you use Firefox? Do you think all Web sites should work given your chosen technology? Or is it your job to somehow adapt to people who only code for Internet Explorer? Is it their fault that you don't use Internet Explorer? Frankly too bad on you. Life sucks. Now imagine someone's showing you that attitude, yet your body is setup such that you can't use anything but Firefox. If you ever go blind from looking at too much Natalie Portman smothered in hot grits I hope you remember your post.

Back on topic: the biggest problem I see for site owners is CAPTCHA as screen readers can't read the majority of CAPTCHAs out there, everyone had better make sure the system they use allows for a sound file alternative. reCAPTCHA [recaptcha.net] looks like a good service, you get to encode books at the same time as fighting spammers! Personally haven't used it on a project, but did notice the sound file alternative link.

Re:

And what's wrong with making sure that blind people aren't begging on the streets for food? Because that's what happens if you deny them access to jobs and stores. Do you really want blind people to have to drive to the store because they can't order what

Re:Yay lowest common denominator

Why is it my job (metaphorically speaking) to ensure those who are disabled can use my facilities?

Because society says so, many believe a society is as good as how it treats its weakest people. Not saying I agree, but it is the reason why I have to pay for somebody else's retirement, or for somebody else's kids to get educated.

Why isn't it their job to somehow adapt? Is it my fault someone else can't see, hear, walk, or think clearly? Frankly, too bad on them. You got a shitty roll of the dice. Life sucks.

At some point almost everybody suffers a "life sucks" moment, and we create rules to try and fairly take care of people during those instances. If you have a genetic defect, why can't health insurance companies deny you coverage? If somehow you lose your job, why are you allowed to get out of debt by filing bankruptcy?
Sure life sucks, that doesn't mean society can't help with "reasonable accomodation."

Re:

With regards to the internet I agree with you. There is no denying that the internet is a largely visual system, and to say it's not is delusion. With regards to corps, well they have to make their brick and mortar facilities available to the handicappe

Re:Yay lowest common denominator

but how do you really honestly make a website available to someone who is blind?

Google is blind. Are you aware of how many people tailor Web sites for that thing?

Software that reads to words on the screen would be woefully inaccurate since it doesn't really lend itself to telling you where those words are on the screen when you have to follow links and in the case of most websites there are a lot of words present.

I have a sneaking suspicion you've never used a screen reader, nor are you a proficient Web designer. Where the text is on the page is irrelevant, as long as the page has good structure: headings, lists, blockquotes, em tags, strong tags etc. a screen reader will be able to read it perfectly well. The Web is for communicating information, text is the best way of achieving that in most cases and where images are used all that's needed are the trivial additions of alt tags to provide a quick description of what the image contains.

Re:

Thank you for the info, no I'm not a website designer nor have I ever used a screen reader. I still think that the something similar to the Wiimote has merit though. It would be great if say you defined the boundaries of the screen with a strong rumble,

Re:

I think this is potentially a really great idea, especially for content that actually has to be presented graphically.

However, to a person who's been blind their whole life, the two-dimensional layout of a webpage is often irrelevant. It doesn't matter to

Re:Yay lowest common denominator

"Why is it my job (metaphorically speaking) to ensure those who are disabled can use my facilities?"

I don't really know the answer, but I can offer you some speculation: If you're offering your services to the general public, then you'd be unfairly discriminating against disabled people. (This is assuming, of course, that the changes are reasonable. Ramps leading to the doorway aren't the same as denying wheelchair access to a roller coaster.) Now, that's a little broad/extreme, so I'll water it down a bit. A place like Target sells everyday needs to a broad range of people. If a wheelchair-bound person cannot buy something like toilet paper, they're in trouble. I think the idea is to make the world a little easier on people that have these problems.

"Why isn't it their job to somehow adapt? Is it my fault someone else can't see, hear, walk, or think clearly? Frankly, too bad on them. You got a shitty roll of the dice. Life sucks."

Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it. Unfortunately, that's not something you'd be saying if you were stuck in a wheelchair. Those people with a shitty roll of the dice are doing the best they can with the technology available to them to continue to lead a productive life. If common everyday tasks are difficult because a big company like Target didn't spare a little extra expense to resolve the issue, it becomes offensive. "Why is it so frickin hard to build a ramp?! I just want some f'n toilet paper!"

Okay, that's wheelchair access to a physical property, so that example doesn't work well in this discussion. So what about this particular case? From what I've gathered, they could, without a lot of effort or expense, update their site to work for the blind. They're not doing that. In theory, they could just take their business and move on to Wal-mart or Amazon or something. But the problem is that disabled people have had to fight battles like this for decades. If they don't win something like this, the risk is other companies will ignore them because they're not big enough to be profitable.

Life sucks for these people, but it doesn't have to. That's the point. When a little more thought goes into the design of a building or a webspace, it makes life easier for everybody, but it also makes life livable for those with disabilities. Life can suck. That roll of the dice can happen to you at any time.

Re:

It's not a popular opinion because it's evil.

It's also, and this may matter more to you, stupid.

A cooperative society walks all over an uncooperative society. Hint: You will never, not in your whole life, be worth as much to us as Stephen Hawking. We'd

Re:

Why is it my job (metaphorically speaking) to ensure those who are disabled can use my facilities? Why isn't it their job to somehow adapt?

They are adapting - they use assisstive technologies like screen readers. The law essentially says that you have to m

Re:

Armless people are suing casinos because the slot machines aren't 'accessible' to them.

Modern slot machines have buttons you can push with your foot or nose... and I'm sure if you ask nicely the casino would be happy to have somebody help you drop quarters

Re:

At the time of the lawsuit, it was impossible for a screen reader user to 'checkout'. You could, with difficulty, put items in a cart, but the 'checkout' button was a hot region on the screen which was not selectable by keyboard. You HAD to use a mouse t

Re:

"but what are the "and headings are missing that are needed for navigation"?"

I would guess that means things like tables are missing properly formatted (meaning they can be picked up by the naked eye) headers. There are numerous accessibility guideline

IMG tag inside a H1-H6 tag

"They probably use IMGs instead of H1-H6 tags, either because they are using a non-standard font, or some design in the headings. There are a few workarounds for this. You can use H1-6 in your markup, and replace it with images in the CSS (assigning an ID

Re:

"Zero support from me for regulations of this kind on private business."

If your a completely private entity, those accessibility rules would not apply. But for businesses open to the public, there's a long history of discrimination that has been held as i

Re:

Firefox also has a nifty feature that lets you set a guaranteed Minimum font size- anything smaller than, say, 12 points can be preemptively forced to 12 points.
Edit-preferences-content (tools-options-content on windows)
Under "Fonts & Colors" click a