Comments on: Target = New Lawsuit http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/ Raising the awareness of Web Site Accessibility and Marketing. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:11:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Uk Accessibility Guidelines Announced | Web Site Accessibility Blog http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-13626 Uk Accessibility Guidelines Announced | Web Site Accessibility Blog Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:58:48 +0000 http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-13626 [...] 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.” [...] […] 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.” […]

]]> By: Nick Webb http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-434 Nick Webb Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:23:18 +0000 http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-434 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. 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.

]]> By: Matt Bailey http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-428 Matt Bailey Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:46:03 +0000 http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-428 I stand corrected. In reading the posts at Webstandards.org and <a href="http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php" rel="nofollow">Disability Rights Advocates</a>, Target was approached and notified of the problems with the website. Here is part of the issue from NFB President Dr. Marc Maurer: <blockquote>“We tried to convince Target that it should make its website accessible through negotiations,? says Dr. Maurer. “It’s unfortunate that Target was unwilling to commit to equal access for all its online customers. That gave us no choice but to seek the protection of the court. The website is no more accessible today than it was in May of last year, when we first complained to Target.? Explaining the grounds for the NFB suit, Mazen M. Basrawi, Equal Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates, notes that Target’s actions are in violation of California law, which in turn incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). “Target.com is a ‘public place’ within the meaning of California Civil Code because it is open to the public, and because the laws apply to all services related to Target stores, including the website,? says Basrawi.</blockquote> 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 <a href="http://www.dralegal.org/downloads/cases/target/nfb_v_target_fact_sheet.doc">NFB v Target fact sheet</a> (Word doc): <blockquote>Q: How did this suit develop? A: The NFB wrote Target in May 2005 asking Target to make its website accessible to persons who are blind. The NFB and Target entered into negotiations, which lasted until January 2006. Target still refuses to make its website accessible. </blockquote> 8 months of negotiations and no Alt Text? Amazing. 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:

“We tried to convince Target that it should make its website accessible through negotiations,? says Dr. Maurer. “It’s unfortunate that Target was unwilling to commit to equal access for all its online customers. That gave us no choice but to seek the protection of the court. The website is no more accessible today than it was in May of last year, when we first complained to Target.?

Explaining the grounds for the NFB suit, Mazen M. Basrawi, Equal Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates, notes that Target’s actions are in violation of California law, which in turn incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). “Target.com is a ‘public place’ within the meaning of California Civil Code because it is open to the public, and because the laws apply to all services related to Target stores, including the website,? says Basrawi.

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):

Q: How did this suit develop?
A: The NFB wrote Target in May 2005 asking Target to make its website accessible to persons who are blind. The NFB and Target entered into negotiations, which lasted until January 2006. Target still refuses to make its website accessible.

8 months of negotiations and no Alt Text? Amazing.

]]> By: Tomas http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-427 Tomas Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:14:27 +0000 http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-427 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. 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.

]]> By: Nick Webb http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-425 Nick Webb Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:00:44 +0000 http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/02/09/target-new-lawsuit/#comment-425 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: <a href="http://webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2006_02.html#a000604" rel="nofollow">http://webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2006_02.html#a000604</a> 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

]]>