Responses in line marked with dp.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/010508-target.html
Blind Americans demand Web access; Target fights back
dp: two miss nomers. this story is not about "blind americans
demanding web access". It's about a real mess in the courts. The
second miss nomer is that Target is not fighting back, they are
moving ahead with their business plans and decisions as are most
companies because or inspite of what's going on in anyone elses mind.
Court battle expected to heat up in coming months
dp pure speculation.
By Jon Brodkin, Network World, 01/05/07
Retailer Target's refusal to make its Web site more accessible to the
blind
dp I have not seen target refuse anything.
has fueled a high-profile court battle that is causing many companies to
quietly upgrade their Web sites in the hopes of avoiding negative
publicity
and legal liability.
dp I've not seen any movment in any direction as a result of this
little action.
The case will unfold over the next several months, but a federal judge
has
already dismissed Target's claim that Americans with Disabilities Act
prohibitions against discrimination do not apply to commercial Web
sites.
This ruling, and other advocacy efforts on behalf of the blind, has
caused a
number of "major e-tailers" to upgrade their sites to make them
compatible
with software the blind use to access the Internet, says Paul Rosenfeld,
senior vice president of federal accessibility solutions at the SSB BART
Group in San Francisco, a consulting firm founded by technologists with
disabilities.
These online retailers contacted SSB BART to assist in that upgrade, but
Rosenfeld says he can't identify the companies because they wish to
remain
anonymous.
dp: this is an oximoron. If I were "upgrading" my web site to make
it more accessible, I'd want it to be known. I do know that
companies who do this type of work are using this and other actions
to beat organizations over the head in order to obtain work, but
that's the way of business.
"This Target case, it's been a wake-up call for e-tailers," Rosenfeld
says.
Before the case, advocacy groups for the blind would often ask companies
to
upgrade their Web sites and not receive immediate results,
dp and now?....
he says.
Retailers typically don't make those upgrades right away "unless there's
litigious action or some need for risk management," he says.
Targeting Target
dp: catchy but distastefull.
A class action lawsuit filed by the National Federation of the Blind
(NFB)
accused Target.com of lacking alt-text for many graphics, preventing
blind
customers from browsing products and looking for Target locations.
dp: Interestingly, I've been doin just this for years.
Accessible Web design allows the blind to navigate sites using just Tab,
Shift-Tab, and Enter.
dp boy how boring.
The Target lawsuit is unique because most companies, when told by blind
people that their Web sites are inaccessible, are willing to make the
necessary upgrades, says John Pare, spokesman for the National
Federation of
the Blind. They may not make the change instantly, but companies at
least
begin the process of fixing the problems. Legal action is a last resort
for
the NFB, he says.
dp and the nnfb has had a lot of last resorts lately.
"We really work to resolve it locally," he says. "The only company,
certainly in the last several years, that has said just plain 'no' is
Target."
dp I have not heard target say no.
Target's refusal surprised the NFB, because the retailer is losing out
on
money blind people are willing to spend, and the lawsuit may damage the
company's public image.
dp Target has not lost my business and I douubt they'll loose enough
business if any to worry about. Consider that the lpublicity
surrounding the legal action has heightened awareness of target.
Consider that whenever it comes up in my conversations with sighted
and blind alike, I truuthfully say I shop there and do not find it
inaccessible. I can prove it and have had to on occasion. Not all
of the site is accessible, but the claims cited here are not my
experience.
When contacted by Network World, Target reiterated a statement the
company
originally issued in October, which reads as follows: "Target.com is
committed to providing an online experience that is accessible to all of
our
guests. Despite the lawsuit brought forward by the National Federation
of
the Blind (NFB), we have always and will continue to implement new
technologies to our Web site. We are in the process of making online
enhancements that will benefit all of our guests, including those with
disabilities. These enhancements will occur regardless of the outcome of
this lawsuit."
dp this does not sound like "no" to me.
In court, Target argued that its Web site is not a "place of public
accommodation" the way a brick-and-mortar store is, and that the site is
therefore not governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act
dp and this argument could have just as well gone either way. This
also does not sound like kno. It is a legal argument just like the
one put forth by the NFB when they opposed audio description.
....
Despite that agreement, the Target court ruling was the first to
directly
state that the ADA applies to private Web sites, advocates for the blind
say. The court has not yet addressed the practical question of how to
define
accessibility, Pare says. A court date is scheduled for April to
determine
whether the suit against Target can go forward as a class action.
"This is not going to happen quickly," Pare says.
Tracy Andrews, a 43-year-old resident of Cheshire, Conn., who has been
legally blind since she was a child, says she often encounters
difficulty
when searching the Web but is surprised Target has opted to fight the
lawsuit.
dp Let me get this streight, we have a plaintiff and a defendant, the
plaintiff says that the deffendant did ssomething rong, the defendant
says not so. an arbitrator says, well sort of because we can
enterpret what the plaintiff says in such a way as to make it appear
so. So far, that's all the story I know. How is this adding up to
target fighting anything?
...
Although the legal requirements for private companies are not as clear,
many
commercial Web sites have already made the switch to accessibility.
Amazon.com and Wal-Mart have Web sites that are in good shape, Pare
says.
dp Really?!
Organizations can apply to the NFB for a certification demonstrating
that
their site complies with accessibility guidelines. Ten have obtained the
certification, including Merck, Legal Sea Foods, HP, General Electric,
Wells
Fargo and the Social Security Administration.
dp at what cost and are they truly accessible? do they meet wai
double a? who can use them?
...
The cost of making a Web site accessible usually equals 5% to 10% of the
cost of Web maintenance, says Preety Kumar, CEO of Deque Systems, a
Reston,
Va., company that helps Web site designers automate the task of
complying
with accessibility standards.
"A very small percentage" of companies have made their sites accessible,
she
says.
"They're overwhelmed, that's what I'm sensing," Kumar says. "There are
companies that are responding to the Target lawsuit, and they're paying
attention because they realize the risks of noncompliance are not
insignificant."
dp if it's so cheap, why isn't it being done? if it's so feared, why
isn't it being done or is it? If it is truly iinexpensive to refit a
site, it'll be done ina heartbeat. Fact is that companies don't have
to do anything that doesn't meet their customers and stock holders
ddemands and they are not about to and the truth is that itt can be
hugely expensive with considerably small gains for a commpany to
retro a site. Were I looking at this from a CEO perspective, I'd
probably just code to standards and let the targets fall.
....
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Send comments on list operation to
[log in to unmask]
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
Signoff: [log in to unmask]
Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
|
