Home Phone and Internet $60/mo
- Related Stories
-
Devices help the blind cross tech divide
October 5, 2005 -
Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web, court says
September 27, 2004 -
Travel sites agree to changes for the blind
August 20, 2004 -
Spam-bot tests flunk the blind
July 2, 2003 -
Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web
October 21, 2002
When it comes to shopping, for example, the 24-year-old college student doesn't have to get to and navigate brick-and-mortar stores or ask employees for help. Rather, with the help of a keyboard and screen-reading software, he can navigate a Web site and make his purchase.
Or can he?
Sexton, along with a blind advocacy group, filed a class action lawsuit this week against Target, alleging that the retail giant's Web site is inaccessible to the blind and thus violates a California law that incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit, filed in Northern California's Alameda County Superior Court by Sexton and the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind (NFB), claims that Target.com, "contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for blind customers to use."
For example, the suit charges that visual information is missing "alt-text," or invisible code that allows screen readers to detect and vocalize a description of an image. In addition, the site lacks accessible image maps, an impediment to jumping to different site destinations, the suit says. As a result, Sexton, who attends the University of California, Berkeley, says that while he can search the site for specific products, he's unable to associate prices with those goods.
Sexton, who is president of the California Association of Blind Students, said he has always been too frustrated with Target.com to reach the point of actually buying something. If he did get to the checkout point, he would face an additional barrier: the Web site requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, noted plaintiffs' attorney Mazen Basrawi, who works for Berkeley, Calif.-based Disability Rights Advocates and is also blind.
For a blind person, using a mouse makes it more difficult to gauge one's bearings on a site, explained another representative of the Disability Rights Advocates.
"A blind patron cannot purchase anything at Target.com without sighted help," Basrawi said, adding that Target.com is just one prominent example of many corporate sites that fail to meet minimum Web accessibility standards. "This is the tip of the iceberg."
A Target spokeswoman told CNET News.com on Friday that the company has not yet been served with legal papers, and therefore cannot comment on any specific allegations. "However, we strive to make our goods and services available to all of our guests, including those with disabilities," reads a statement from the company.
Specifically, the suit argues that Target is violating the California Disabled Persons Act, which guarantees full and equal access for people with disabilities to all public places. It also argues that Target is violating the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, because blind patrons have been denied full and equal access to Target.com and have been provided services inferior to non-disabled patrons.
The lawsuit seeks changes to the Web site, an admission of the alleged violations by the company, and an undesignated amount of damages to plaintiffs as well as attorneys' fees.
But Baltimore-based plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Goldstein said the suit's larger goal is educating companies about Web site accessibility issues that can be fixed relatively inexpensively. He added that there are financial incentives for doing so, particularly with the growing numbers of blind baby boomers who are Web consumers. "We're just forcing retailers to make more money," he said.
The NFB wrote to Target in May, asking it to make the site more accessible, according to the plaintiffs. Negotiations broke down in January, which led to the filing of the lawsuit, the organization said.
Target.com is "powered by Amazon.com," something defined on the site as utilizing "Amazon.com technology and patented Web site capabilities such as 1-Click checkout to make shopping faster and more convenient for you."
Basrawi says it's not clear if that Amazon technology is leading to the inaccessibility issues, but he knows of other "powered by Amazon" retail sites that are problematic for the blind.
This is just the latest in a series of lawsuits filed related to Web accessibility for the blind. Goldstein represented the NFB in a case against America Online that ended in a 2000 settlement that led to better Web service for the blind, he said. And in August 2004, Priceline.com and Ramada.com agreed to make their Web pages easier to navigate for the blind and visually impaired as part of a settlement with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
But soon after, a federal appeals court ruled that Web publishers are not required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act in a case filed by an advocacy group for the blind asking Southwest Airlines to redesign its Web site.
See more CNET content tagged:
Target Corp.,
Target.com,
patron,
plaintiff,
Baltimore
necessarily saying that Target is a big, bad evil store. I'm just
saying that this sort of thing has been coming for a long time.
Got Zeldman?
someone falling down in front of your house can SUE you for
their own inability to walk upright. Some lawyer will convince the
"victim" that they can extract huge sums of money from the
homeowner. Why is that OK?
There should be a Judicial Board to evaluate cases reported to be
frivolous law suits. The board would have to be made up of
REASONABLE people. If the case is found to be frivolous, the
lawyers bringing the suit would be fined some multiple of the
damages they seek - and disbarred after five instances. That'll
put a crimp into the lawyer's money machine.
I'm going to suggest that to my Congressman.
necessarily saying that Target is a big, bad evil store. I'm just
saying that this sort of thing has been coming for a long time.
Got Zeldman?
someone falling down in front of your house can SUE you for
their own inability to walk upright. Some lawyer will convince the
"victim" that they can extract huge sums of money from the
homeowner. Why is that OK?
There should be a Judicial Board to evaluate cases reported to be
frivolous law suits. The board would have to be made up of
REASONABLE people. If the case is found to be frivolous, the
lawyers bringing the suit would be fined some multiple of the
damages they seek - and disbarred after five instances. That'll
put a crimp into the lawyer's money machine.
I'm going to suggest that to my Congressman.
Sueing Target to get them to change there website so it's more accessible by the blind because there are laws in place that require them to, completely understandable.
Making Target admit to making certain violations, which is sort of an appology to the blind for not following certain guidelines, understandable.
I can even understand them wanting Target to pay the legal fees related to the trial, but why do they feel they deserve "an undesignated amount of damages to plaintiffs" because someone made a mistake?!?
What damage did target really do to these people except to make it frustrating for them to navigate Target's website? They could simply go to Walmart.com or some other website that actually has their website setup right.
Wanting money from this just doesn't make sense to me, anyone else think the same thing?
Besides that, it's a open market, Target.com can do whatever they want. They're not the only company online to sell things, it's their lost in terms of $$ to the blind, but that's their decision.
Overall, just because this is suit about $$... i cant see this as anything but a greedy person lead by more greedy lawyers. They'll get tons of $$, at that point, they wouldnt need to be shopping at Target.com anymore, they could probably more up to, Macys.com ;)
Sueing Target to get them to change there website so it's more accessible by the blind because there are laws in place that require them to, completely understandable.
Making Target admit to making certain violations, which is sort of an appology to the blind for not following certain guidelines, understandable.
I can even understand them wanting Target to pay the legal fees related to the trial, but why do they feel they deserve "an undesignated amount of damages to plaintiffs" because someone made a mistake?!?
What damage did target really do to these people except to make it frustrating for them to navigate Target's website? They could simply go to Walmart.com or some other website that actually has their website setup right.
Wanting money from this just doesn't make sense to me, anyone else think the same thing?
Besides that, it's a open market, Target.com can do whatever they want. They're not the only company online to sell things, it's their lost in terms of $$ to the blind, but that's their decision.
Overall, just because this is suit about $$... i cant see this as anything but a greedy person lead by more greedy lawyers. They'll get tons of $$, at that point, they wouldnt need to be shopping at Target.com anymore, they could probably more up to, Macys.com ;)
I'll bet on the outcome. Target will settle this for a couple mill with about 75% of that going to the attorneys.
Sad to see a blind person being used as a shill by a greedy attorney.
Incorrect. The disney stores were running Karova, which is an accessible and webstandards compliant e-commerce engine. It won a number of rave reviews and awards. Karova's level of accessibility exceeds the NFB's requirements by a significant margin.
I'll bet on the outcome. Target will settle this for a couple mill with about 75% of that going to the attorneys.
Sad to see a blind person being used as a shill by a greedy attorney.
Incorrect. The disney stores were running Karova, which is an accessible and webstandards compliant e-commerce engine. It won a number of rave reviews and awards. Karova's level of accessibility exceeds the NFB's requirements by a significant margin.
The motto of the ADA should be "We want to be equal to you...
no matter what the cost or inconvenience is to you"
If you're blind, deaf, whatever, life has dealt you a crappy hand.
Is is completely inconceivable that at some point in your life
you're going to need the assistance of someone?
"A blind patron cannot purchase anything at Target.com without
sighted help,"
What's next, forcing porn sites to add subtitles for deaf people?
How about graphic verbal descriptions of the action for the
blind?
I hate to sound totally unsympathetic, but everything is NOT
going to be equal for those of you with disabilities. All the
lawsuits in the world are not going to make everything equal.
Get over yourselves and accept that you have limitations and
that sometimes you WILL NEED TO ASK FOR HELP!!!
I think no company should be forced to do something they dont wanna. With only the exception that it's essential to people to survive. Things like public services, food, health services, things along those lines. Things that there arent any alternatives to survive. As i see Target.com, it isnt the only option for this blind person to survive at all. They could always goto a actual Target store, goto another website, goto another real store. there are so many options, so why they going suing any company u not happy about what they provide.
accommodate those with disabilities.
Your comparisons are ludicrous. It isn't that hard to include ALT
tags on images, or create a text-only version of their website.
Blind people still use the internet, and if you're going to offer an
online store, it's necessary to include people with disabilities.
Just like you can't exclude a wheelchair ramp or handicap
parking in front of your store.
At some point. But the web is an accessible medium. Target have gone out of their way to make their website inaccessible.
The Web is one of the few places a disabled person can have their independence. Yet, companies like Target, with their substandard quality websites, make it impossible for blind people to use their sites - and there is no justifiable reason for it.
For a decently coded site, a blind person will be able to use the services and information on offer. But Target haven't done their jobs properly. They've taken away the independence of blind people on their website. Is it intentional?
The motto of the ADA should be "We want to be equal to you...
no matter what the cost or inconvenience is to you"
If you're blind, deaf, whatever, life has dealt you a crappy hand.
Is is completely inconceivable that at some point in your life
you're going to need the assistance of someone?
"A blind patron cannot purchase anything at Target.com without
sighted help,"
What's next, forcing porn sites to add subtitles for deaf people?
How about graphic verbal descriptions of the action for the
blind?
I hate to sound totally unsympathetic, but everything is NOT
going to be equal for those of you with disabilities. All the
lawsuits in the world are not going to make everything equal.
Get over yourselves and accept that you have limitations and
that sometimes you WILL NEED TO ASK FOR HELP!!!
I think no company should be forced to do something they dont wanna. With only the exception that it's essential to people to survive. Things like public services, food, health services, things along those lines. Things that there arent any alternatives to survive. As i see Target.com, it isnt the only option for this blind person to survive at all. They could always goto a actual Target store, goto another website, goto another real store. there are so many options, so why they going suing any company u not happy about what they provide.
accommodate those with disabilities.
Your comparisons are ludicrous. It isn't that hard to include ALT
tags on images, or create a text-only version of their website.
Blind people still use the internet, and if you're going to offer an
online store, it's necessary to include people with disabilities.
Just like you can't exclude a wheelchair ramp or handicap
parking in front of your store.
At some point. But the web is an accessible medium. Target have gone out of their way to make their website inaccessible.
The Web is one of the few places a disabled person can have their independence. Yet, companies like Target, with their substandard quality websites, make it impossible for blind people to use their sites - and there is no justifiable reason for it.
For a decently coded site, a blind person will be able to use the services and information on offer. But Target haven't done their jobs properly. They've taken away the independence of blind people on their website. Is it intentional?
internet for anything, but the Internet is essentially a visual
structure, and it's not meant to interact with blind people. Nor
can any sort of text reader even begin to be adequate for almost
all web pages. So a suit like thins one is frivolous and almost a
legal sham.
Maybe we need a a special access mode for blind people, with
simpler web pages suitable for text readers. I don't think that
this mode has any reason to be mandatory, but it could be
optional for any site that wanted to offer it. The user could have
a master cookie on his or her computer which designated the
user as blimd in one form or another.
Last time I checked, the telephone companies aren't required to
provide phone books in braille. But any person can dial the
operator, say "braille", and get full assistance in locating a phone
number. But no braille phone book. So when was the last time
this group sued the phone company?
Seems like there are more important things these peopl could be
doing.
doesn't have reader software?
Now just apply the same logic: the Internet in Braille would make no sense, but how about an easy to implement workaround. Hmm, like I don't know maybe freakin' Alt tab or two. Too much to ask?
When do you think phone companies started offering operator assistance and TTY service? Just because they wanted to? Nope, it was a bunch of lawsuits. So when was the last time someone sued the phone company for failing to provide disabled service? It happens every day, and if it didn't they wouldn't provide any service at all.
That is completely wrong. The Web is largely a textual protocol - it carries accessibility within itself. Your perception of it as a visual structure is only one aspect of the web. A properly coded site - at least one that meets basic levels of accessibility - is not limited to visual perceptions.
"Nor can any sort of text reader even begin to be adequate for almost all web pages."
Blind people have probably been using the web for far longer than you. Even before the first graphical browser hit the web, the web was actively used by blind people. Screen readers are adequate for the job - they do their jobs well. As tools, they cannot do the impossible, they cannot extract the correct information from an image. That barrier has to be alleviated by the website, by providing a textual alternative.
"Maybe we need a a special access mode for blind people, with simpler web pages suitable for text readers."
There is no reason for this - websites can be coded to meet basic levels of accessibility without needing such a draconian approach.
internet for anything, but the Internet is essentially a visual
structure, and it's not meant to interact with blind people. Nor
can any sort of text reader even begin to be adequate for almost
all web pages. So a suit like thins one is frivolous and almost a
legal sham.
Maybe we need a a special access mode for blind people, with
simpler web pages suitable for text readers. I don't think that
this mode has any reason to be mandatory, but it could be
optional for any site that wanted to offer it. The user could have
a master cookie on his or her computer which designated the
user as blimd in one form or another.
Last time I checked, the telephone companies aren't required to
provide phone books in braille. But any person can dial the
operator, say "braille", and get full assistance in locating a phone
number. But no braille phone book. So when was the last time
this group sued the phone company?
Seems like there are more important things these peopl could be
doing.
doesn't have reader software?
Now just apply the same logic: the Internet in Braille would make no sense, but how about an easy to implement workaround. Hmm, like I don't know maybe freakin' Alt tab or two. Too much to ask?
When do you think phone companies started offering operator assistance and TTY service? Just because they wanted to? Nope, it was a bunch of lawsuits. So when was the last time someone sued the phone company for failing to provide disabled service? It happens every day, and if it didn't they wouldn't provide any service at all.
That is completely wrong. The Web is largely a textual protocol - it carries accessibility within itself. Your perception of it as a visual structure is only one aspect of the web. A properly coded site - at least one that meets basic levels of accessibility - is not limited to visual perceptions.
"Nor can any sort of text reader even begin to be adequate for almost all web pages."
Blind people have probably been using the web for far longer than you. Even before the first graphical browser hit the web, the web was actively used by blind people. Screen readers are adequate for the job - they do their jobs well. As tools, they cannot do the impossible, they cannot extract the correct information from an image. That barrier has to be alleviated by the website, by providing a textual alternative.
"Maybe we need a a special access mode for blind people, with simpler web pages suitable for text readers."
There is no reason for this - websites can be coded to meet basic levels of accessibility without needing such a draconian approach.
While we're at it, let's sue the states for not following ADA guidelines to permit the blind to drive.
And lawyers wonder why they have a bad reputation? They only have themselves to blame.
You don't have sound on your TV? Wow - you are missing out.
"Let's sue the radio stations because they don't make their content accessible to the deaf!"
Radio is an aural medium, it has no visual facets, as such it is a limited medium. The web, however does not have this limitation. A piece of text on a website can be displayed (visual), read out (aural), or rendered on a refreshable braille display (touch). One piece of information rendered for three distinct senses.
Ergo, the minute you can convince me that sighted help is required for blind people to watch television, or how adding a line or twenty of code can grant def people access to radio or fix that pesky problem of blind people not being able to perceive oncoming traffic whilst driving (we've got the location problem reasonably licked), this argument has merit. Otherwise, what we have here are more ill-thought-out quackings from people who know about as much on this topic as I know about graphic design. This is to say nothing of the absurdity of invoking the ADA with regard to blind people driving. No one with any knowledge of the act would suggest such stupidity, because a bona fide safety issue is going to take precedence. Again, please tell me how equal access to target.com would create a safety issue.
While we're at it, let's sue the states for not following ADA guidelines to permit the blind to drive.
And lawyers wonder why they have a bad reputation? They only have themselves to blame.
You don't have sound on your TV? Wow - you are missing out.
"Let's sue the radio stations because they don't make their content accessible to the deaf!"
Radio is an aural medium, it has no visual facets, as such it is a limited medium. The web, however does not have this limitation. A piece of text on a website can be displayed (visual), read out (aural), or rendered on a refreshable braille display (touch). One piece of information rendered for three distinct senses.
Ergo, the minute you can convince me that sighted help is required for blind people to watch television, or how adding a line or twenty of code can grant def people access to radio or fix that pesky problem of blind people not being able to perceive oncoming traffic whilst driving (we've got the location problem reasonably licked), this argument has merit. Otherwise, what we have here are more ill-thought-out quackings from people who know about as much on this topic as I know about graphic design. This is to say nothing of the absurdity of invoking the ADA with regard to blind people driving. No one with any knowledge of the act would suggest such stupidity, because a bona fide safety issue is going to take precedence. Again, please tell me how equal access to target.com would create a safety issue.
Equality for life's essentials I can understand but shopping on the internet is not an essential.
Perhaps poor people should sue Target for not selling products at a loss?
I'm glad, for once, that I live in a country that doesn't allow for CONTINUOUS lawsuits to be launched for (from foreign eyes) what seems like ANYTHING.
It is too bad that lawyers in the US have so much power that it is going to be extremely tough for Americans to change this.
Equality for life's essentials I can understand but shopping on the internet is not an essential.
Perhaps poor people should sue Target for not selling products at a loss?
I'm glad, for once, that I live in a country that doesn't allow for CONTINUOUS lawsuits to be launched for (from foreign eyes) what seems like ANYTHING.
It is too bad that lawyers in the US have so much power that it is going to be extremely tough for Americans to change this.
Specifically, the suit argues that Target is violating the California Disabled Persons Act, which guarantees full and equal access for people with disabilities to all public places.
A website is a 'public place'...ok...everyone in their underwear at the computer, you are being charged with exposure....everyone drinking at the computer, public drunkeness....everyone smoking... you get the idea.