A large issue that brought about the suit was the fact that at that
time, in some instances when you went to check out from the Target
site, there was a "checkout" button that wasn't visible to screen
readers, and it wasn't possible to trigger it with the keyboard. It
did not always appear, but did some. I know this for a fact, because
it happened to me.
I presume there was one or more circumstances that made this
difficult to use control appear, like being a first time customer or
something. There were other problems, but if this one happened to
you it was a show stopper.
This also accounts for the reason that there has been such a variety
of opinions on whether or not the site was accessible. For some it
was, for others it wasn't.
Dave
At 08:50 AM 8/28/2008, Dan Rossi wrote:
>My confusion mainly comes from when is a sight inaccessible? And,
>when is it OK to sue.
>
> From my understanding, there are blind people who can purchase
> things from Target.com, but many blind people, possibly not as
> computer savvy find it difficult. So is the sight inaccessible, or
> just clunky.
>
>for example, I had purchased tickets on SouthWest before the suit
>against them ever happened. I also have used annualcreditreport.com
>before and was surprised to see that they had made some kind of
>agreement to make their site accessible. It seemed fine to me.
>
>I don't understand why it is OK to sue Target but not OK to sue for
>accessible currency. I have heard arguments against accessible
>currency saying that it is too expensive to do. I am sure this suit
>and the extra man hours to revamp the Target website, and maintain,
>test and verify new changes to the site, won't exactly be free.
>
>I have also heard arguments that blind people can ask sighted people
>what change they are being handed. Or, that there are electronic
>means for blind people to identify currency. Or, that there are
>ways for blind people to deal with inaccessible currency. Well, I
>would assume that a blind person could ask a sighted person to help
>them navigate a web site. Or a blind person could call Target to
>order an item. or, a blind person could take their business somewhere else.
>
>I just feel that, unless we get an unbiased third party to set some
>guidelines, the term "accessible" is pretty ambiguous. It leaves
>lots of room for bringing suits. Maybe one blind person finds a
>site inaccessible, but others don't. Maybe some blind people find
>asking sighted people what cash they are being handed is just fine,
>but others feel that isn't a valid accessibility adaptation.
>
>I think this ambiguity could eventually bight the blind community in
>the behind.
>
>--
>Blue skies.
>Dan Rossi
>Carnegie Mellon University.
>E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
>Tel: (412) 268-9081
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>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]
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus
>Database: 270.6.10/1638 - Release Date: 8/27/2008 7:06 PM
>
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
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]
|
