(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		05-15-24 07:53 PM
0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Target sued: website not accessible to blind New poll | |
Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
Deleted User
Banned


 





Since: 05-08-06

Last post: None
Last view: 6296 days
Posted on 10-02-06 04:56 PM Link | Quote
The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), represented by Berkeley's Disability Rights Advocates as well as two law firms, has sued discounter Target, alleging that it violates California disabled-rights law because its website is not operable by blind computer users. "The suit charges that the site lacks, for instance, compliant alt-text, an invisible code embedded beneath graphics that allows blind users to decipher images. The suit also contends that because the Web site requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, blind customers are unable to make purchases on their own." As longterm readers of this site know, demands for website accessibility under the ADA and similar laws have been simmering for years; in 2002 a federal court turned down such a claim with respect to Southwest Airlines' website, and two years ago (Jan. 8, 2004) a NFB activist said disability advocates were biding their time, waiting for the right case to reopen the issue. It sounds as if the Target lawsuit may be that case.

Is this just plain stupid or what??? !!!



(edited by Coldspyll on 10-02-06 03:56 PM)
Rom Manic









Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 10-02-06 05:09 PM Link | Quote
Isn't it a W3C standard to have img alt="xxxxxxxx"?

In any case, it's just a simple oversight. They could have just emailed the webmaster, which would have been easier on both the petitioner and defendant's wallets, lawyers and such. The claim that they need an alternate method of making transactions is viable only in the sense that they would have to force the website owners to make get a separate line to make transactions with.

Money nabbing crooks.

(edited by Rom Manic on 10-02-06 04:09 PM)
drjayphd

Torosu
OW! BURNY!








Since: 11-18-05
From: CT

Last post: 6298 days
Last view: 6296 days
Posted on 10-02-06 10:21 PM Link | Quote
Actually, the "you need a mouse" bit is probably the only reason this suit won't get pitched on sight. I'd imagine a simple fix should be all that comes out of this.
||bass
Administrator








Since: 11-17-05
From: Salem, Connecticut

Last post: 6297 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 10-03-06 08:39 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Rom Manic
Isn't it a W3C standard to have img alt="xxxxxxxx"?

In any case, it's just a simple oversight. They could have just emailed the webmaster, which would have been easier on both the petitioner and defendant's wallets, lawyers and such. The claim that they need an alternate method of making transactions is viable only in the sense that they would have to force the website owners to make get a separate line to make transactions with.

Money nabbing crooks.
Yes it is the standard. Technically it's not even proper html unless all images have alt tags. Though I should point out that alt="" is also valid.
Cruel Justice
I have better things to do.


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: At my house!

Last post: 6296 days
Last view: 6296 days
Posted on 10-03-06 10:19 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by ||bass
Originally posted by Rom Manic
Isn't it a W3C standard to have img alt="xxxxxxxx"?

In any case, it's just a simple oversight. They could have just emailed the webmaster, which would have been easier on both the petitioner and defendant's wallets, lawyers and such. The claim that they need an alternate method of making transactions is viable only in the sense that they would have to force the website owners to make get a separate line to make transactions with.

Money nabbing crooks.
Yes it is the standard. Technically it's not even proper html unless all images have alt tags. Though I should point out that alt="" is also valid.

Very true. Alt images are not only proper, but they're basic. I also agree with the point made about e-mailing the webmaster. I'm sure no one held a gun to the blind man's head demanding him to view the website.
Arwon

Bazu


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Last post: 6297 days
Last view: 6297 days
Posted on 10-03-06 10:33 AM Link | Quote
How do the blind use the intertnet?
rubixcuber

Mole








Since: 09-08-06
From: St. Louis, MO

Last post: 6405 days
Last view: 6405 days
Posted on 10-03-06 11:07 AM Link | Quote
Mostly through the use of programs that read the text and layout of a website and use text-to-speech to convey it to them. This is where alt text for images comes into play, because these programs generally use the alt text to describe what the image is to the blind user.
Deleted User
Banned


 





Since: 05-08-06

Last post: None
Last view: 6296 days
Posted on 10-03-06 09:05 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by rubixcuber
Mostly through the use of programs that read the text and layout of a website and use text-to-speech to convey it to them. This is where alt text for images comes into play, because these programs generally use the alt text to describe what the image is to the blind user.


Another big controversy was that they said Target's site was just pictures and that the "Jaws" program couldn't read it, but wouldn't that mean it would be "Jaw's" fault?
Rom Manic









Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!

Last post: 6295 days
Last view: 6295 days
Posted on 10-03-06 10:18 PM Link | Quote
I want to know how a blind man would read Gamespot or IGN properly, with all their sidebars.
geeogree

Red Cheep-cheep


 





Since: 11-17-05

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6296 days
Posted on 10-04-06 07:29 PM Link | Quote
boo fricken hoo.... poor blind man that can't read a website. Is it really worth suing over? Sending an e-mail seems to be the more realistic approach to solving the problem.

I highly doubt the coder of the site considered the small group of blind people that use the internet and maybe wasn't even aware of the problem he caused.

I hope someone in a wheelchair doesn't sue me because my apartment isn't wheelchair accesible.
n3g-Z3r0 theory

Rat


 





Since: 01-09-06
From: Augusta, Ks

Last post: 6338 days
Last view: 6315 days
Posted on 10-05-06 01:29 AM Link | Quote
Hmm, all this sounds like to me is another chance for someone to try and sue a big corporation because they found a small flaw in the system that wasn't even the corporation's fault....Like those 2 obese girls that sued McDonalds because it made them fat...IT IS ALL FRIVULOUS!!! Besides, shouldn't a blind person have someone living with them anyway so they don't hurt themselves? And couldn't that person just do the buying over the internet for them anyway?????????
Cara Zeltina

90


 





Since: 05-11-06

Last post: 6370 days
Last view: 6370 days
Posted on 10-06-06 12:19 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Rom Manic
I want to know how a blind man would read Gamespot or IGN properly, with all their sidebars.

Well considering those are both videogame related websites, I highly doubt that anyone blind would have any reason to go to them anyway.. (You need to be able to see to play a videogame after all, and being unable to play them defeats the purpose of visiting such sites..)

Those types of sites are also rather meager in comparison to a major shopping corporations webpage anyway.. So that said, I'd say it is rather irrelevant..
Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Target sued: website not accessible to blind |


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.015 seconds; used 400.97 kB (max 501.55 kB)