Courtesy of the guys over at Accessify, The National Federation of the Blind, the California affiliate and a college student are suing Target. They also want certification for a class action lawsuit (whoopee! $2.00 for everyone!) in order to get Target to provide an accessible web site. Specifically noted in the complaint is the lack of ALT text in the images (or “invisible code”), as the NBC News article states.
I may be a little naïve in this, but did anyone think to attempt a meeting or a formal complaint to Target without jumping into a lawsuit? It seems to be a little premature to go the legal route, as the BNC news article mentions nothing about a previous attempt to inform Target of the problem, or even that target was aware that the website created such a problem. C’mon, really - it’s alt text. Can’t we talk about this like adults?
I support accessible web sites. I would be the first to tell Target that they should have an accessible website. However, who am I to tell them that they must? If a corporation wants to exclude people from using their website, it’s their right to be inaccessible (right now). I would think Target would want to be accessible to everyone, just from the commercial (greed) aspect. In a true commercial environment, why limit the number of customers you can have?
It’s similar to Free Speech in my opinion. You have the right to say what you want, you also have the right to be incorrect and say pretty stupid things. Just be prepared for the backlash when you do.
Hi Matt,
I found another blog post about this same lawsuit yesterday. Apparently the NFB did bring the accessibility issues to Target’s attention some ten months ago, during which time nothing has changed on the site. Realisticly, ten months should be ample time to start improving the site. It’ll be interesting to see how this progresses, as this could set a significant precedent.
You can find the other blog posting at:
http://webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2006_02.html#a000604
Comment by Nick Webb — February 10, 2006 @ 4:00 am
Dereks post over at webstandards.org states that Target was indeed informed:
“The website is no more accessible today than it was in May of last year, when we [NFB] first complained to Target.”
So they can’t say they didn’t know. As for the alt-text part: If you offer a 30% discount only to those who can *see* the image saying “This week at target.com: Save 30% on select discoveries” you are discriminating against disabled people under just about any jurisdiction I can think of.
Comment by Tomas — February 10, 2006 @ 8:14 am
I stand corrected.
In reading the posts at Webstandards.org and Disability Rights Advocates, Target was approached and notified of the problems with the website. Here is part of the issue from NFB President Dr. Marc Maurer:
So, official notification and 10 months to act on something as simple as alt text? I am amazed that nothing was done or no statement has been released by Target. I was hoping that there was an attempt to remedy this, and I am glad to know that there was, now I feel that I can support the legal action.
I guess my question at this point is this: Is it clear discrimination or ignorance? Knowing that Target is powered by Amazon, but by what extent? 10 months without action also shows an element of both.
We have clear discrimination laws for public buildings, retails establishments and physical locations, but nothing for the web. This has the potential to be the watershed case that brings about that change for the electronic media, which I have mixed feelings about. While more accessibility is good - enforcing it brings a host of other issues.
Here is the most compelling statement I’ve seen in the case files so far, from the NFB v Target fact sheet (Word doc):
8 months of negotiations and no Alt Text? Amazing.
Comment by Matt Bailey — February 10, 2006 @ 10:46 am
Interestingly, according to another post today on webstandards.org, Target have now addressed one of the accessibility issues - the image-based submit buttons that could only be activated using a mouse click.
It goes to show what can be achieved with a little pressure, carefully applied.
Comment by Nick Webb — February 10, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
[…] Wow. That’s a little chunk of change, especially considering what is happening here in the US with the NFB lawsuit against Target.com. In light of that, the PAS-78 guide is not intended to be a legally binding document, but could be used to “force an organisation to improve the accessibility of its website.” […]
Pingback by Uk Accessibility Guidelines Announced | Web Site Accessibility Blog — September 20, 2006 @ 11:58 am