<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court Denies Target.com Plea for Dismissal</title>
	<link>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/</link>
	<description>Raising the awareness of Web Site Accessibility and Marketing.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:28:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matt Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-13086</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:20:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-13086</guid>
		<description>Even thought Amazon provides the technology to Target, Amazon itself is not a 'brick and mortar' business that is under the current US Accessibility Laws.  Until now, most accessibility laws have been limited to physical locations and have not addressed the virtual ones.  This lawsuit is attempting to bridge that gap between a physical store and its digital counterpart.  

Even though Target uses the Amazon system, there are still large differences between Target.com and Amazon.com.  Amazon makes extensive use of ATL attributes and is somewhat able to be understood.  Target is 'hiding' critical information (sales, discounts, and free shipping offers)in graphic images.  Target is still responsible for  how it uses the system, and what it offers its consumers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even thought Amazon provides the technology to Target, Amazon itself is not a &#8216;brick and mortar&#8217; business that is under the current US Accessibility Laws.  Until now, most accessibility laws have been limited to physical locations and have not addressed the virtual ones.  This lawsuit is attempting to bridge that gap between a physical store and its digital counterpart.  </p>
<p>Even though Target uses the Amazon system, there are still large differences between Target.com and Amazon.com.  Amazon makes extensive use of ATL attributes and is somewhat able to be understood.  Target is &#8216;hiding&#8217; critical information (sales, discounts, and free shipping offers)in graphic images.  Target is still responsible for  how it uses the system, and what it offers its consumers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-13076</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-13076</guid>
		<description>Now, since Target.com is powered by Amazon.com, does the lawsuit actually pertain to Amazon and their lack of support for those users or is the suit against the company that decided on the back-end system to use? I'd think the technology provider should be held accountable, not their customer. Or am I missing the point here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now, since Target.com is powered by Amazon.com, does the lawsuit actually pertain to Amazon and their lack of support for those users or is the suit against the company that decided on the back-end system to use? I&#8217;d think the technology provider should be held accountable, not their customer. Or am I missing the point here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quartz Mountain Communications</title>
		<link>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-12861</link>
		<dc:creator>Quartz Mountain Communications</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-12861</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Could your web site get you sued?...&lt;/strong&gt;

A precedent setting legal case this week should make all web site owners sit up and take notice.&#160; A federal district court judge in California has allowed a suit brought by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) against Target Corp. to go forw...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Could your web site get you sued?&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>A precedent setting legal case this week should make all web site owners sit up and take notice.&nbsp; A federal district court judge in California has allowed a suit brought by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) against Target Corp. to go forw&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Lee King &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Target Being Sued for Website Inaccessibility</title>
		<link>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-12733</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lee King &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Target Being Sued for Website Inaccessibility</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-12733</guid>
		<description>[...] Go read &#8220;Court Denies Target.com Plea for Dismissal,&#8221; from the Web Site Accessibility Blog. The Federal Court Judge marilyn Hall Patel has ruled that &#8220;a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind.&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Go read &#8220;Court Denies Target.com Plea for Dismissal,&#8221; from the Web Site Accessibility Blog. The Federal Court Judge marilyn Hall Patel has ruled that &#8220;a retailer may be sued if its website is inaccessible to the blind.&#8221; [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-12689</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:54:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-12689</guid>
		<description>This is good news! But let's not get too excited yet. 

The NFB press release headline states, "retailers must make their websites accessible to the blind under the ADA." Huh? I don't see that anywhere in the ruling. The ruling simply states that the discrimination laws apply to the website. Whether the inaccessibility of the site is determined to be discrimination (and thus must be fixed) is yet to be determined.

Regardless, this is an important legal interpretation and precendence that many in the accessibility field have been looking for.

Yes, invention is much better than coercion, but on the other hand, it's not like web accessibility is a brand new thing. While I don't hope (nor anticipate) that there will be a flood of lawsuits, the precendence that this and a few other cases might bring should be enough to alert retailers to the need to get with the program.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is good news! But let&#8217;s not get too excited yet. </p>
<p>The NFB press release headline states, &#8220;retailers must make their websites accessible to the blind under the ADA.&#8221; Huh? I don&#8217;t see that anywhere in the ruling. The ruling simply states that the discrimination laws apply to the website. Whether the inaccessibility of the site is determined to be discrimination (and thus must be fixed) is yet to be determined.</p>
<p>Regardless, this is an important legal interpretation and precendence that many in the accessibility field have been looking for.</p>
<p>Yes, invention is much better than coercion, but on the other hand, it&#8217;s not like web accessibility is a brand new thing. While I don&#8217;t hope (nor anticipate) that there will be a flood of lawsuits, the precendence that this and a few other cases might bring should be enough to alert retailers to the need to get with the program.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design &#124; Target Accessibility Case will go forward!</title>
		<link>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-12688</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design &#124; Target Accessibility Case will go forward!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:50:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.accessibilityblog.com/2006/09/07/court-denies-targetcom-plea-for-dismissal/#comment-12688</guid>
		<description>[...] No question that this is the big news for this case today - but what will happen tomorrow? It&#8217;s entirely possible, now that a precedent has been set, that any number of follow-up lawsuits could be pressed. Matt Bailey suggests that this is the &#34;last thing we need&#34;. He&#8217;s probably right - what is needed is to set a strong example, not go wild with the courts. Matt also mentions the important fact that web retailers pay the price of inaccessibility in lost sales - it would be very interesting to see a cost analysis demonstrating how many sales Target has lost due to accessibility issues. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] No question that this is the big news for this case today - but what will happen tomorrow? It&#8217;s entirely possible, now that a precedent has been set, that any number of follow-up lawsuits could be pressed. Matt Bailey suggests that this is the &quot;last thing we need&quot;. He&#8217;s probably right - what is needed is to set a strong example, not go wild with the courts. Matt also mentions the important fact that web retailers pay the price of inaccessibility in lost sales - it would be very interesting to see a cost analysis demonstrating how many sales Target has lost due to accessibility issues. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.531 seconds -->
