[blindlaw] Court rules Target must make websiteaccessibletotheblind

[Kathleen Hagen]

I would go further.  I would say that a comparison should be made between 
the sighted users of the web site and the blind users.  I am reasonably 
certain that Target has made its site as user friendly as possible to 
sighted users.  In fact, they want people to use the site, so things would 
not be made technically difficult.  So, isn't it discriminatory if only 
high-end blind users can use it when it is geared toward anyone sighted who 
has a computer using it?  I was going to say "even children using it" but so 
far as I can tell, children these days are the highest end computer users. 
What I can't understand is why Target and other companies as well are 
willing to spend huge amounts of money in court on this issue when it 
probably costs them a lot less to make the site accessible.  And they would 
get many on-line shoppers as well.  Can someone explain, is it really that 
complicated or expensive to make a web site accessible?
Kathy Hagen
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rumpole" <Rumpole at gwi.net>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Court rules Target must make 
websiteaccessibletotheblind


>I would have to agree, the 9th is known for being like that. But a start is
> a start - lets hope that it goes forward to a good conclusion for all
> disabled shoppers.
> In my time as a technology consultant I did notice a trend of note and
> relevance here though.
> The blind and visually impaired  computer users who are what you may
> describe as "high end users" tend to be those who can use the 
> accessibility
> aspects of a web site, even if they are pretty much minimal to most
> "average" users. If you will forgive the labeling there.
> So, yes, I have no trouble understanding that a good defense council can
> find some blind and visually impaired computer users to demonstrated that
> they can, in fact use the site. Hence it is accessible to the finder of
> fact.
> Thus I would prepare for this pre-trial with a percentage  agrument as a
> small part of it all. I have little doubt that something like this has 
> been
> done in some way and I would like to know how well it will work out in the
> end.
> I recall quite clearly one individual a few years back pointing out to me
> that not everyone is a "power user" and well versed in using their
> particular screen reader as those who have been lucky enough to have 
> access
> to things as I have. Her point was that there are those who are just 
> average
> and find that many many web sites need to be "clubbed into submission" by
> them. Her assertion being that the average users far outnumber the power
> users.
> This is a point that can certainly be made in this case and again, it
> probably is being made.
>  So - I would put the following question to those on this list: "If a web
> site is usable by high-end computer users, is it "accessible under the
> theory put forth by defense council, or is it "accessible if "average" 
> users
> can access it?"
> Being a former techy, I argue the latter and assert that the former can
> always be demonstrated by those who live and breath little more than
> computers daily. Those of us who are average lack the expertise to take
> advantage of the site's accessibility.
> Do only the "high end users" of non-adaptive equipped computers regularly
> use the site or is the site aimed at the average user?
> Yes, my question suggests the desired answer. But then again, I'm not in
> court right now. Just stating my view on a legal issue.
> What do others think?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kathleen Hagen" <khagen12 at earthlink.net>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Court rules Target must make website
> accessibletotheblind
>
>
>> And these appeals are likely to start with Target, although the 9th
> circuit
>> is still fairly liberal.
>> Kathy
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Rumpole" <Rumpole at gwi.net>
>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Court rules Target must make website accessible
>> totheblind
>>
>>
>> > Well done, and well put Mazen. Good quotation from the article:
>> >    Explaining the ramification of the ruling, Mazen M. Basrawi, Equal
>> > Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates, noted that: "the
>> > court
>> > clarified that the law requires that any place of public accommodation
> is
>> > required to ensure that it does not discriminate when it uses the
> internet
>> > as a means to enhance the services it offers at a physical location."
>> >
>> > I think that the effect of the ruling is exactly why this will be 
>> > fought
>> > hard by other retailers across the country - appeals will abound on 
>> > this
>> > topic?
>> >
>> > Speaking strictly for myself, online shopping sure would make my life
>> > easier
>> > as the Christmas shopping season approaches.
>> > I'm going to pull this case up and read it through - I'd really like to
>> > know
>> > more about it.
>> >
>> > Ross A. Doerr Esquire
>> >
>> > Today's definition is drawn from "The Devil's Dictionary" by: Ambrose
>> > Bierce.
>> >
>> > "Cynic: N. A blaggard who insists on seeing things as they really are
>> > instead of how they ought to be. Hence the custom among the ancient
>> > Cythians
>> > of plucking out the eyes of a Cynic to improve his vision."
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > blindlaw mailing list
>> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>