Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 10/02/2006 5:44:59 AM PDT by stm
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled this month that a lawsuit filed against Target Corp. by the National Federation of the Blind challenging the accessibility of the retailer’s Web site can move forward.
NFB officials contended that the ruling sets a precedent, establishing that retailers must make their Web sites accessible to the blind under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
“This ruling is a great victory for blind people throughout the country,” said NFB President Marc Maurer.
When asked if the NFB would file lawsuits against other retailers in an effort to improve Web site accessibility, NFB spokesman John Pare said, “You probably could imagine that we would.”
The lawsuit was filed a California Superior Court on Feb.7 as a class action on behalf of all blind Americans. The suit was moved to federal court a month later.
The NFB says the Target ruling sets a precedent. The NFB says the Target ruling sets a precedent. The plaintiffs in the case — the NFB, the National Federation of the Blind of California and blind college student Bruce Sexton — claimed that the Minneapolis-based retailer’s Web site, www.target.com, violates federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities.
Target had filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the laws don’t apply to Web sites because they aren’t physical places of public accommodation. The retailer further claimed that applying California statutes to its Web site, which is accessible to consumers nationwide, would violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In her decision early this month, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel also denied an NFB motion for a preliminary injunction to force Target to promptly make its site accessible to blind people. Patel ruled that sufficient questions were raised in the lawsuit with respect to whether the average blind person can access Target’s Web site.
“While disappointed the lawsuit was not entirely dismissed, Target is pleased the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction,” the retailer said in a statement to Computerworld.
“We believe our Web site complies with all applicable laws and are committed to vigorously defending this case,” the company said, adding, “We will continue to implement technology that increases the usability of our Web site for all our guests, including those with disabilities.”
Mazen Basrawi, a lawyer at Berkeley, Calif.-based Disability Rights Advocates, a co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said, “This is groundbreaking. No court has yet ruled directly that the ADA applies to Web sites, which [Patel] has clearly done in this opinion. We hope that it [this case] is going to encourage businesses to include accessibility in their Web development.”
When asked about its policies by Computerworld, The Home Depot Inc. said that it “continually reviews and updates its Web site on the basis of many factors, including customer feedback.” In a statement, the Atlanta-based home improvement retailer said that it “is currently developing enhancements to the site that would further improve the shopping experience for our customers with disabilities.”
In the ruling, Patel said that the ADA statute “applies to the services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation. To limit the ADA to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain language of the statute.”
In an endnote following the decision, Patel noted that Target’s Web site “is a means to gain access to the store, and it is ironic that Target, through its merchandising efforts on the one hand, seeks to reach greater numbers of customers and enlarge its consumer base, while on the other hand it seeks to escape the requirements of the ADA.”
Gawd, is it April 1st already?
Next thing you know they will be suing the San Francisco Chronicle because they can't read the newspaper.
Are they supposed to provide Braille monitors?........
This is absurd!
This judge should have laughed this suit out of court!
If Yawn Effing Kerry had been elected, all blind people would now be able to see!
What in hell is Target supposed to do? Go to every blind pseron's home and wave a hand over them and "make them see"?
LMAO...this is legal insanity at its best. I'm surprised this man isn't suing Playboy or Penthouse instead.
What that means is that special software designed for that purpose must be able to "read" the textual material.
This is not an easy task. For one thing the average sighted individual really has a difficult time understanding what it is the blind don't see.
The private sector has been exempt from this requirement ever since the legislation was passed that made it mandatory for the government.
Did someone bother to look at the law first?
This judge should be shown a Braille Interface for the PC. Why should a web retailer be responsible? Next thing they will rule is that each state DMV is discriminatory because the eye tests are stacked against blind people.
You can get those in braille. You should feel the centerfold for September!..........
There is a font in Windows that enlarges all text..........
I'm visually impared and I get along very well on the i-net, thank you. I use firefox, and, if I can not read the text, I increase the text size Is it easy, no, but it isn't a FR (target, Walmart, The Home Depot) problem, it is mine.
I guess all government services and retailers must now provide teletext functionality on their telephones for those who are deaf. (How would one accomodate Helen Keller?)
My sister designs websites (made 2 or 3 for me for free, heh-heh), and she makes sure that all her sites are accessible up front. I don't agree that the gubmint should butt in, but for a big retailer like that to ignore the blind is just stoopit. 10 million people, more or less.
I'm sorry if I offended you, I am hearing impaired, myself. I wear a hearing aid, but am told by my doctors that eventually it will not be enough to keep me hearing. I get aggravated by TV channels that don't have closed captioning............
As muawiyah states in his post just above yours, there is software that will transform text to speech, or to braille readers. The problem is that many retail websites don't follow the text standard necessary for conversion to speech or braille. The blind have the technology, but if websites don't use the correct protocols required by that technology, then it cannot work. For example, having text as a graphics file would not be readable by that technology. Also, those code words used by different websites and IM services aren't machine readible which means they can't be accessed by the blind. The blind have a heck of a hard time to function in society and roadblocks like this on the internet are just one example. Or do you suppose they should be just shut away so as not to be an inconvenience to you or society?
Can I get my drivers licensenin braille?
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
I’m fortunate that I don’t have any physical handicaps and I’m sure being blind, deaf or paraplegic doesn’t make life any easier.
The private sector, sometimes because of mandate and some times because it just makes good business sense, are often wiling to make reasonable accommodations but where does it end? This makes no sense.
What if I am illiterate? Is Target or Wal-Mart responsible to send someone who can read to my house every week to read the weekly circular for me? What if I’m intellectually impaired? Does my local retailer have to assign me a personal shopper to make sure I make good purchases because I’m not able to make good choices for myself?
I can’t imagine all the different handicaps that might have to be accommodated and the fiscal burden that creates and how we all end up paying for it.
I think of the Discovery Channel series, “Little People – Big World”. What an inspiration this family is. They don’t let their physical challenges get in their way and they prosper and survive without and perhaps because the government and the world doesn’t make things “easy”.
BTW - Why is it that the drive up ATM at my bank has keypads in Braille?
ping
You certainly did not offend me, at all.
I thought all the tv stations were closed captioned, but apparently I was wrong.
It's not just drivers use drive thru ATMs. What about a blind person in the rear seat behind the driver of a cab? I'm sure that blind person would not want the cabbie to have is ATM PIN or access the blind person's bank account.
I have warned folks who run web sites that they should think of folks who are visually impared... most have laughed it off.....
its not a Braile interface, though you can use those.
Most visually impared use readers, where the computer reads the text.
Used to be you could use LYNX in conjunction with this to be able to at least get around...
With the rise of Dynamic sites, and flash etc etc etc this technique is effectively useless.
Then you can forget about down loading music at Wal-Mart.com - because it is not accessable to firefox users.
Maybe we should sue!
Check this one out.
I think the big problem with stories like this is that people without disabilities, and I mean serious disabilities like being parapalegic or blind or deaf, are simply ignorant of all the little things that suddenly become almost insurmountable challenges. Handicapped people face these situations time and time again every day. Unless you are affected by such disabilities, it really is hard to imagine the little things we take for granted that become almost impossible to a disabled person.
No, local TV stations don't have CC on all their programming. Even some national CC doesn't work well. On my TV FOX news channel and sometimes the Weather Chennel CC is gobbeldygook. Commercials most of the time aren't CC. Many late night/ eary morning programs aren't CC. I would have thought that by now all programs could be CC by computer, but I can tell when a REAL PERSON is doing the CC and not a computer................
Sorry, but being blind is called a handicap for a reason. It is not the responsibility of a retailer to make their website accessible to a blind person.
That really is sad on the part of those web designers. What an arrogant attitude.
My thought is that it's just cheaper to make them all the same way and second, it's avoids potential legal action.
I disagree. Based on your heartless opinion, there should be no handicapped parking spaces, or wheelchair ramps, or bathroom stalls big enough to accomodate a wheelchair? You believe the handicapped should just go away and not bother the rest of society? By saying that the ADA should not apply to a business's commercial website, that's exactly what you are saying. The internet is for seeing people only so screw the people who can't see. I hope you are never afflicted with such a condition.
Well my warnings were more to the management of companies that own web sites, not the designers themselves.
Most designers have no clue how to design for the visually impared, but they only deliver what they are told to deliver.... If businesses were telling them make sure a version of it will work for the visually impared.. .they'd make sure they did.
In college, as part of a psychology course, we were required to pretended to be blind, then deaf, then mute for three different classes. For example, when it was my turn to be blind, I had to put on dark goggles and be led around by my helper for a couple hours. We used stairs and elevators, went to the cafe for lunch, used a vending machine, etc. You know, the day-to-day living kind of things.
It was AWFUL not being able to do anything for myself. It was also a real eye opener.
Reasonable accommodations are fine, but where does it end?
I thank God every day for my health....
I'm not being heartless, I think the retail industry should take care of these things on their own. If Target doesn't make their website readable to blind people, they can take their business elsewhere. That is what we mean by free enterprise.
Just for the record, if I were afflicted by such a condition, I would have the common decency to ask a family member or friend help me, not demand that the government, a judge, or a retailer to make it easier for me.
Because it's cheaper to just put them on every ATM than to keep track of which ones don't "need" them.
Doesn't do any good for "background" messages. You still need the special software to read those ~ or, open up everything under Front Page.
I just skip on by.
Americans with Disabilities Act provides for attorney fees.
ADA cases are drying up.
This is about lawyer and "expert fees" (plaintiffs cand be financially compensated for ADA suits) The real plaintiff is the "expert" who gets paid.
Dig a little and you will find an ADA suit mill.
Sure, that way you can use the Braille keypad on the Drive-Up ATMs.
One of the big issues with the handicapped is to retain as much independence as possible. Sure, having friends and family help is a great idea. But that gets real old real fast. It can help sometimes, but you would not be able to depend on someone all the time. Also, many blind do actually live alone. And I see no issue with taking the matter to court. We do have laws about such things and if a retailer does not wish to follow the law, then a lawsuit is one answer. And this will be a very interesting test case. Note that the judge is letting the case go forward. That means the judge doesn't think it is a trivial case. And with the internet becoming a more and more central part of everyday lives, the closer and closer the ADA will come to bear. What happens if a company says that they won't conduct business over the phone and that you have to go to their website? I actually had that happen to me with Bright House. They could not make any changes to my account over the phone. I *had* to go to the website. I think this is an important case and will set a precident one way or another.
However, I'd want half a mil and a continuing contract to advise them. Oh, yeah, and I don't do the code ~ THEY DO THE CODE ~ this is an additional expense.
I've found my blue blindness is a good proxy for what meets the standards for the special software. If I can't see it, they can't read it.
A lot of that stuff is virus ridden anyway..........
Red Badger,
I have to wear hearing aids in both ears. I went in for an r&r a couple weeks ago and they were telling me about a new model that works on the Bluetooth principal. The hearing aids are wireless recievers that can tap into your phone/cellphone and TV when they are set up correctly. Soon as I can get a set of those, I will be able to use the phone and hear the news on TV for the first time in years. Check it out.
And that is good news. It means there is greater and greater public accomodation for the handicapped. What I do despise are the lawyers who abuse the intent of these laws as a form of legal extortion. But I don't think this Target suit is under that umbrella. It is a very legimate concern.
See my post #49. The ADA is an important piece of legislation, but I can't stand the greedy ones who abuse the heck out of something that has made life not easier, but a bit more bearable, for the handicapped. taking advantage of the ADA in such a way is no different than directly taking advantage of someone who is handicapped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.