Joe Clark thinks that Target may win. Apparently, they’ve dug up some JAWS power users that can get through the site with minimal difficulty. That’s a big blow to the claim that it is inaccessible.
Rob Garner asks why Target would resist the very improvements that would make the site more usable and relevant in the search engines.
The Target v NFB Case History, as well as excellent legal resources for disability rights: The dismissal ruling.
Of course, The case has made it to the Wikipedia. Feel free to contribute . . .
Jacob Sullum proposes that if Government mandates accessibility, then they should fund the necessary changes, otherwise it is the web development companies that benefit. The comments under his proposal tend to disagree, as accessibility practices can be enacted more easily than most people think. One commenter asks if sentences will have to be shorter as the current generation of ADD kids grow up and use websites.
There’s some question, in addition, as to how the website itself should be judged: since it’s a dynamic resource, and has been changed since the initiation of the lawsuit, (notably some mouse-only image inputs), should these JAWS users be required to negotiate the site as it existed at the time of the lawsuit? Do changes made in response to the suit actually negate part of the suit?
There’s certainly a good chance that Target will win, but at least issues of web accessibility have made the news in a fairly prominent way.
Comment by Joe Dolson — September 19, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
As an Adaptive Computer Technology service provider, I can tell you that not all technology users are experts in the technology they use. Just like all internet users are experts in internet technologies.
I have worked with JAWS users who have 10 years experience, which would normally classify them as “expert”, who have difficulty with what would be considered mundane tasks.
I have worked with others that could manipulate a well designed interface faster than a sighted used.
They could even navigate all but the most agregiously inaccessible sites to some degree.
They were, of course using the latest, greatest adaptive technology and had a remarkable understanding of what they were up against.
The “normal user” of adaptive technology would have a significantly different experience.
They are not, usually using JAWS 7.0x.
How about HPR 3.0.4, Supernova, or HAL?
To imply that “Oh, this problem is ameliorated by setting this option in your configuration…”, is a complete dodge of the practical issue.
A simple conformance with generally accepted web design standards will make your application at least usable with many adaptive computer technologies.
Comment by Steve Buell — September 19, 2006 @ 7:49 pm