Good point.  What this suit is striving to do, is to have the courts
establish a precedent that others can point to as a basis for what is
considered to be accessible under the law.  Once such a standard is
established, then society will know where the bar has been set, and what the
minimum must be, when creating web pages.

-- George



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Elder" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Fw: Article: Target Corporation sued for
discriminating against persons who are blind


I believe the individuals in this case are seeking to fix a much larger
problem and not just the inconsiderate practices of the Target corporation.
Target is being made an example and the damages sought will hopefully send a
message to other businesses to comply with the disability laws in
California. Unless you want to file a new lawsuit asking a business to fix a
problem every time they set up an inaccessible website, damages are
necessary to give businesses an incentive to comply with the law.
No one wants to see a bunch of frivolous litigation that makes blind
plaintiffs look like ungrateful whiney burdens on society. This case, as far
as I can tell from speaking to Mr. Sexton isn't about convenience or get
rich quick settlement chasing. My impression is that they're making Target
an example because the laws in California require equal service to all
disabled individuals and a reading of the law could imply that online
services in California are tied to the services of the physical stores.
Target took no  action prior to the suit to comply with this law and so I
hope the damages sought will encourage them to change their website and that
other businesses in similar circumstances will do so as well.
Tim Elder

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sherry Wells
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Fw: Article: Target Corporation sued for
discriminating against persons who are blind



  Yes, I would agree with you there.  I thought it was interesting but
certainly didn't intend to imply that Target was necessarily guilty of any
blatant discrimination.  I also have a problem with people seeking damages
for inconvenience.  If these sorts of suits are brought at all I would like
to see them just seek correction of the problem.

  Sherry Wells



        David Poehlman <[log in to unmask]>
        03/30/2006 02:45 PM
       To Sherry Wells/Chicago/IBM@IBMUS
              cc
              Subject Re: [VICUG-L] Fw: Article:  Target Corporation sued
for discriminating against persons who are blind







  there are more than one side to every story.  This is one side of
  this story.

  On Mar 30, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Sherry Wells wrote:

  I found this kind of interesting for a couple of reasons, one that
  Target
  wouldn't just fix their web site and two that there must be thousands of
  web sites that are not accessible for shopping.

  Sherry Wells

  The following article is forwarded to you by the Great Lakes and
  Accessible
  IT Center (www.adagreatlakes.org) for your information:

  CCH Business Law and Compliance
  March 30, 2006

  Target Corporation sued for discriminating against persons who are blind

  The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) has filed a class action
  lawsuit
  in California's Alameda County Courthouse against Target Corporation,
  the
  nationwide discount retailer which operates more than 1,300 stores in 47
  states. The suit --brought by the NFB, the NFB of California and Bruce
  "BJ"
  Sexton, a blind student going to school at the University of California
  Berkeley --alleges that Target's website violates the California Unruh
  Civil
  Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act because it is
  inaccessible to persons who are blind.

  The plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, a
  Berkeley-based non-profit law firm that specializes in high-impact cases
  on
  behalf of people with disabilities, Schneider & Wallace, a plaintiff's
  class
  action and civil rights law firm in San Francisco, California and Brown,
  Goldstein & Levy a leading civil rights law firm in Baltimore, Maryland.

  Online services at issue. "Blind customers should have the same
  access to
  Target's online services that Target offers its sighted customers,"
  stated
  NFB President Dr. Marc Maurer. Dr. Maurer explained that persons who are
  blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with
  screen-reading
  software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen.
  However,
  Target's website --which according to its home page is "powered by
  Amazon.com" --contains significant access barriers that prevent
  customers
  who are blind from: (1) browsing and purchasing products online; and (2)
  finding important corporate information, such as employment
  opportunities,
  investor news and company policies.

  The plaintiffs contend that Target's website fails to meet the minimum
  standard of web accessibility. Specifically, they allege that the
  website
  lacks compliant alt-text and an invisible code embedded beneath graphic
  images (which allows screen readers to detect and vocalize a description
  of
  the image to a blind computer user). Further, the plaintiffs argue that
  the
  website contains inaccessible image maps, which prevent customers who
  are
  blind from jumping to different destinations within the website. Because
  the
  website requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, customers
  who
  are blind are unable to make purchases on Target's website
  independently.

  "We tried to convince Target that it should make its website accessible
  through negotiations," explained 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."

  Grounds for lawsuit. Explaining the grounds for the NFB suit, Mazen M.
  Basrawi, Equal Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates,
  noted
  that Target's actions are in violation of California law, which in turn
  incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He explained
  that,
  "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." Simply put, Target
  is a
  retail outlet, a public place, with a public website. The retail
  outlet is
  a
  store, and the website is a service provided by and integrated with the
  brick-and-mortar stores," Basrawi continued.

  The complaint, filed on February 7, 2006, in California Superior
  Court for
  Alameda County seeks to enjoin Target from continued violation of the
  California Civil Code. The suit asks the court to declare that Target is
  operating its website in a manner that discriminates against the
  blind and
  persons with visual disabilities in violation of California law. The
  complaint also seeks damages for the plaintiffs.

  "I want to be able to shop online at Target.com just like anyone else,"
  says
  UC Berkeley student BJ Sexton, who is a named plaintiff in the
  lawsuit. "I
  believe that millions of blind people like me can use the internet
  just as
  easily as do the sighted, if the website is accessible."

  Source:  http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/033006a.asp


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html