[gui-talk] Fwd: Article: Target Fights The Wrong Fight For The Wrong Reason

[Steve Pattison]

>From: John Rae thepenguin at rogers.com
>To: AEBC aebc at blindcanadians.ca
>
>On Handicapped Access, Target Fights the Wrong Fight for the Wrong Reason
>
>Evan Schuman
>PC Magazine, Sep 24, 2006 17:47:47 GMT
>
>When a federal judge in California agreed that a lawsuit from the National
>Federation for the Blind can proceed against Target, e-commerce executives
>should have breathed a collective sigh of relief.
>
>The lawsuit essentially argues that Target's online operation violated the
>Americans with Disabilities Act because it is not designed to be easily
>accessible to blind users.
>
>Target's defense has been that the ADA does not explicitly talk about Web
>sites, so, Target reasons, it's not covered.
>
>That argument is wrong for so many reasons. For the moment, let's set aside
>that the argument is wrong legally (the California judge already dealt with
>that one). From Target's perspective, it's more relevant that the answer is
>wrong from a marketing, customer service and an IT and design perspective.
>
>The original intent of ADA was to allow consumers with physical handicaps
>the same access to public places-including retailers-as the rest of the
>public. The e-commerce sites of large retailers today are natural extensions
>of their physical storefronts and the intent of the initial law clearly
>should apply to Web sites.
>
>What if Target took this argument to its next stage and decided that
>discrimination laws and hate laws didn't apply to their Web site because
>those federal laws-many of which were written long before today's Web was
>prominent-didn't specifically mention them? Would it feel free to flout
>those laws on its Web site by publishing racial slurs and hate-filled death
>threats?
>
>E-commerce is such an ingrained part of retail today that all physical
>laws-where possible-must apply. But even if Target had a more sound defense
>to this litigation, why in the world would it want to pursue it? Why is it
>spending a mountain of legal dollars to justify keeping a large segment of
>potential consumers from easily using its site? And it's doing so in a very
>public manner.
>
>Let's take a look at what is at play here. To make a large site such as
>Target's accessible, it needs to add in text mouse-overs (alt-text) so that
>screen readers can speak what images represent. But many highly designed
>sites simply don't work without being able to see the images, so a more
>radical redesign is often required.
>
>Those more substantial redesigns can cost money, but it's not an obscene
>amount. A site such as Target's would likely cost anywhere from $800,000 to
>$2 million to make accessible. Although not pocket change, it's a one-time
>expense that Target could easily absorb. Their legal costs in fighting
>this-not to mention the loss of business from the associated bad
>publicity-will surely be more. But ROI concerns are also not the real reason
>for Target to not
>fight this.
>
>The real reason to make those one-time changes is that it would result in a
>more-efficient, faster and simply superior e-commerce site for all
>consumers.
>
>For years, retailers have gone for flash (as well as Flash) and multimedia
>and arresting graphics with little regard to download time, increased
>probability of programming glitches and incompatibilities. with multiple
>OSes, different browsers, tons of updated add-ons, firewalls, spyware/pop-up
>blockers and computer screen sizes, it's hard enough getting a design that
>will work for all.
>
>Add to this today's mobile demands (PDAs, smart phones) and site design is
>going to find it more difficult to present one appearance to all. And yet,
>having multiple versions of the identical site rarely makes sense, and it
>certainly would be a nightmare for retailers with constantly changing stock
>and prices. Maybe a car company could get away with it, but probably not.
>
>The types of changes that the ADA is asking of retailers' Web sites
>would-unintentionally-make
>so much of that better. It can then be justified under the
>marketing-friendly label of making the site more open to all.
>The question of retail sensitivity to those without perfect vision is
>nothing new. A wide range of recent stories have shown retailers being more
>open to
>visually impaired consumers, from various and studies on
>Terry Golesworthy is the CEO of a research firm called The Customer Respect
>Group. (I probably should say that it's a group that apparently doesn't
>include
>certain Target execs, but I'll be nice and not say that.)
>Golesworthy's firm watches major retail sites and assesses how well they
>handle consumer interaction issues, including site accessibility.
>
>"I think Target
>is just the unfortunate test case, but it is nowhere near the only company
>to be at risk," he said.
>"The clarity the case might bring to the area of accessibility means we
>might see a lot of projects fired up for defensive reasons. The Y2K issue is
>the closest thing we have seen recently that might be an analogy. "This is,
>of course, smaller, but represents the same type of potential behavior with
>executive management throwing money at a problem they really do not
>understand but have a perceived business downside. This time, though, it's
>for litigious and
>PR reasons."
>
>Agreeing with Golesworthy is veteran retail technology analyst Paula
>Rosenblum, who today is a vice president with the Retail Systems Alert
>Group.
>
>"This lawsuit, assuming it is successful, is a double-edged sword. The
>'beauty' of government mandates and singular events like Y2K is they drive
>enterprises out of their short-term ROI mentalities," Rosenblum said.
>
>"Complying with new regulations will either be a huge distraction for
>retailers as they rush to comply with a government mandate, or will serve as
>an opportunity to not just comply with the mandate, but take the opportunity
>to clean up their online and cross-channel acts. This is long overdue."
>
>In Golesworthy's latest study of the Web sites of the Fortune 100, his team
>found that only 12 sites were "fine," 52 had "real problems" and 36 were in
>the in-between "amber" stage, he said.
>Target was among the 52 with "real problems," and Wal-Mart was in the amber
>in-between zone.
>
>For the record, the 12 whose sites were found to indeed be ADA-friendly were
>three tech players (IBM, Microsoft and HP), three financial firms (Wells
>Fargo, Bank of America and Washington Mutual), three manufacturers (Delphi,
>Dow Chemicals and John Deere), one insurance company (Nationwide Mutual), a
>pharmaceutical
>(Johnson & Johnson), and one lone retailer: Walgreens.
>
>Golesworthy's advice to Target is to give up and salvage as much of this
>mess as possible. "You basically fall on your sword and say, 'We're good
>people. Really,'" he said.
>
>Like all other corporate issues, this one resists being made neat and clean.
>For example, consumers are not neatly split into sighted and non-sighted.
>The visually impaired-which includes colorblindness-is potentially a much
>bigger audience of lost consumers.
>
>"Some companies like to use their corporate colors, which not necessarily
>easy to read," Golesworthy said. But a complicated design is the biggest
>problem. Even with mouse-over alt-text, a design that relies on tables and
>formats will simply jump all over the place when the graphics are turned
>off, making it very difficult to navigate, he said.
>
>Another factor is the global market. The has mandated strict accessibility
>rules for any retailer that wants to sell to Europeans. Those rules are
>slated to take effect in 2010. For multinational retailers, "you're going to
>have to do it eventually" so why fight it now, he asked. Why, indeed?
>
>Evan Schuman is retail editor for Ziff Davis Internet's Enterprise Edit
>group. He has tracked high-tech issues since 1987, has been opinionated long
>before that and doesn't plan to stop anytime soon.
>Check out eWEEK.com's for the latest news, views and analysis on
>technology's impact on retail.

Regards Steve
Email:  srp at internode.on.net
Skype:  steve1963
MSN Messenger:  internetuser383 at hotmail.com