Reader Commentary: Target Accessibility Lawsuit Settled
I have a split reaction to the settlement. On the one hand, I'm not fond of lawsuits and I think this could possibly open the floodgates to drive-by litigation against website owners. On the other hand, I think it sends a wake-up call to corporate types who only care whether their website looks good to them and their cronies and wouldn't know whether a website is usable or accessible. There isn't any good reason not to build accessible websites and many good reasons besides accommodating the handicapped.
My Thoughts
If you didn't know, back in 2006, Target was sued by the National Federation of the Blind because their website is not accessible. Target argued that the Americans with Disabilities Act was only applicable to brick-and-mortar stores, not online. Eventually, the suit became a class-action suit, and last week, it was settled for $6million.
Unfortunately, like Dean, I'm concerned that this is going to make it open season on websites - especially sites that appear to have deep pockets. However, when you look at it more deeply, well, the Target site is hard to use for non-disabled people. I find it hard to use, and while I was pregnant I was using it a lot to deal with baby gifts, wishlists, etc. So, if this lawsuit makes them take another look at how their site is built and put some work into making it work for more than just their executives using Internet Explorer, that is a good thing. As Dean mentions, writing accessible websites isn't very hard.
Another thing to remember is that accessibility is not all about making sites usable by blind people. Yes, the suit was brought by the NFB, but accessibility is about making sites usable by everyone - disabled and non-disabled. So, you need to pay attention to alt text, but also to elements that affect usability by people with motor difficulties, hearing difficulties, and so on. Accessibility is very important, and fairly easy to do. You can use tools like Dreamweaver or Expression Web which have built-in accessibility options or you can write accessible HTML from scratch. Use an accessibility validator to check your work. But you'll find that once you get into the habit of writing accessible HTML, you'll see how easy it is.
Accessibility Resources
- Accessible HTML
- What do the Accessibility Guidelines Mean to Me?
- Creating Color Blind Friendly Web Pages
- Low Vision Web Page Layouts
- Validating for Accessibility
- Writing Great Alt Text
- Make Your Alternative Text Actually Readable
- How do I set up an access key on my links and form fields?
- Does the Accesskey Attribute Improve Accessibility?
Sites Discussing the Lawsuit
- About.com Forums
- SitePoint
- Web Standards Project
- CNET News
- WebAIM
- WebmasterWorld
- NorthTemple
- Opera Developer Network
- Microsoft Expression Web Forums
What do you think?
How do you think the settlement of the Target lawsuit will affect Web development? Do you write accessible HTML? Will you change your opinion on accessibility now that this lawsuit has been settled? Let us know by posting in the comments or answering the post.
Comments
There are several sites out there that need to be sued because of their stupidity. To mention one, Jenny Craig. They had a fairly easy to use site that was friendly to screen readers, now since they redesigned it, it is no longer friendly.
When Wal-Mart redesigned their music site, they forgot to use the ‘alt’ tag on their shopping cart and my wife could not find it. She called Customer Service and talked to them about it. Meanwhile, as I looked at the site and finally figured out what the problem was, I told her to tell Customer Service to tell their lazy programers to add the ‘alt’ tag to the link and it should work. About a week later my wife was on that site and the shopping cart worked.
It’s not rocket science, it’s common sense and courtesy to the handicapped world to make these sites accessible to them.
The US litigation system stinks and rarely provides the desired results, but I digress.
This article gave me an idea based upon a recently added print friendly CSS to our school site. What if there was an “accessibility” media type and your accessibility style sheet was loaded based upon the user’s browser settings or browser type. A little coding with an link could accomplish the same thing.
Just floating ideas…
Only in America!
I think the whole notion is ridiculous. Soon website owners will be sued by every minority group for an endless list of creative reasons!
Regards from South Africa
I am not an active web designer though I have designed a few web pages in the past. The WEB is such a visual medium that I think it nearly impossible to design a site for the handicapped that will have the same impact and convey the same information as a visual website. The way I see it though is that any site like Target’s, if it is not accessible and hopes to attract the largest number of visitors, will be self-defeating.
Excluding things like safety issues, no private company owes anything to any of its prospects or customers. If I choose to make Cadre’s website ‘user hostile’ and thereby loose business it should be my own personal and/or business choice. Does it make business sense to make a site unusable for a portion of its business base – perhaps and perhaps not – but it should be a business decision made by the business itself. Before you jump all over me please note that I am the father of a ‘challenged’ son and keenly understand the problems relating to accessibility. There are places and times where mandated accessibility are clearly appropriate – not here IMHO.
I program for easy access for the majority (not doing so well for the blind) of people. If you want the customers, you don’t assume they have/want Flash, sound, video, etc. The premise still comes back to -useful- coding. Just because you -can- add bells and whistles doesn’t mean you -should-!
Linda
The ADA is just another example of the inmates running the asylum. Where in the hell did the liberal/socialists in this country get the idea that they have the right to tell me how I have to configure MY business or MY website just to suit a tiny percentage of the population.
Stupidity beyond comprehension – like putting Braille on a drive-up ATM. Give me a break!
Next, they’ll be telling me that in my own home that the doors are too narrow and the threshold is too high.
These people are nuts!
An added note – as most of you know, it is sometimes more cost effective to ’settle’ a case than to contest it. This settlement doesn’t make it case law. This said, however, Tort reform is needed sooner rather than later.
Jennifer you are part of the problem. “So, if this lawsuit makes them take another look at how their site is built and put some work into making it work for more than just their executives using Internet Explorer, that is a good thing.” My gawd!
Mark: I don’t really see how you get off attacking me for saying that I find the Target website difficult to use and thus hopeful that this lawsuit might make them change that.
I am not “part of the problem” as you put it – unless you feel that “the problem” is that people who don’t have identical opinions as you are allowed to voice them in the United States.
I will continue to advocate companies building websites that are usable – if you disagree with that then perhaps you should read someone else’s site. Attacking me or anyone else posting here is not appropriate. This is not a political forum, it’s a design forum. And one major tenet of design is that it do the job it’s intended to do. If Target’s site isn’t doing that – and I believe it wasn’t when I last used it – then it’s not good design. It’s not a “liberal” or “conservative” issue at all.
This is ridiculous! If you can’t use a website or don’t want to use a website because it is difficult, move on! You don’t HAVE to be a customer. If you want the owner to know they are losing business call and tell them, otherwise deal with it.
My site is OWNED BY ME. I don’t even have to LET you be a customer! I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I design it how I choose to design it.
Saying it is “easy” to make websites accessible is not necessarily true. For some items and basic sites it is easy to do while you are creating the site for others, especially if you use a “packaged” program such as a shopping cart (OsCommerce, etc.) to set it up, it is nearly impossible to back track and add everything necessary. If your site has been around for four or five years and it wasn’t originally coded to be user friendly, try going back to fix it!
BESIDES why does a BLIND person need to know what the PICTURES are on my site? They can’t SEE them anyway! And why do I need text telling a deaf person what song is playing in the background, does it really matter? Will either of those things make it EASIER to buy a product or get information about something, DOUBTFUL.
My aunt is a quadriplegic and has been since 1972. There are plenty of places she can’t go because she can’t get her chair in there. She can pitch a fit and SUE them or she can politely let the owner know she needs special accomodation. Which do you think would work out better in the end? It is a whole lot less expensive to accomodate people WHEN THE NEED ARRISES than it is to change everything JUST IN CASE!
GET A LIFE PEOPLE!
Joey gripes “Stupidity beyond comprehension – like putting Braille on a drive-up ATM.”
While it may at first seem stupid to have Braille on a Drive Up ATM, there is a reason for it. The ATM at the Drive Up is the same one that is used in Outdoor and Indoor Walk Up locations which DO need Braille on their Keys. Its is more cost effective for the ATM Manufacturer to make ONE model with Braille Keys than to have Braille-less keys on the ATMs that are used in Drive Up lines.
While Target settled the lawsuit, I think the important thing was the court ruling that a commercial website can be sued under the ADA. After that, I think Target had little choice but to settle.
There were a couple of other big news stories that week that could possibly have taken the spotlight off of this one, the Google Chrome release and Comcast publishing limits on users. Of those 3 stories, I think the Target case will be the most important for commercial websites. If you are a web designer/developer or an owner, there is now no doubt that you can be sued over website inaccessibility.
This isn’t a political forum. Right or wrong, it is what it is. One personal opinion of mine is the accessibility has been ignored or dismissed by a lot of website owners for far too long.
I think people are missing the point.
Do you know how many people have web sites up and don’t even KNOW what CSS is.
They don’t know Flash isn’t accessible or that alt tags even exist – or how important they are for SEO much less so people can know what’s on the page if for some reason they can’t see the images.
The Web today isn’t about images or graphics. Today the Web is about selling. The attitude that “It’s my party and I can cry if I want to” might be fine for a blog, but for a business site?
You don’t WANT my money???
Hmmm… Jennifer a couple posts ago… “I will continue to advocate companies building websites that are usable – if you disagree with that then perhaps you should read someone else’s site.” Anything like ‘If you don’t like our website, shop somewhere else’? Just had to ask.
I’m actually a firm believer in accessability. But it is MY choice. Not someone elses.
This is a totally frivilous(?) lawsuit. Oh yeah… I almost forgot… The bright white background hurts my eyes. Change it or I’ll sue you. I can’t see the color blue either. Change your link color too. I also have a 2nd grade education. So no words bigger than 2 syllables. Did I mention I’m epileptic? The squiggle text on the ad at the top of the page almost gave me a seizure. Oh yeah! Papa’s gonna buy a new pair of shoes!
Seriously though… That was just pure sarcasm. If I offended anyone with or without disabilities, I am truely sorry. No offense meant.
When I design a website, I do my best to try and make it as accessable to as many people as possible. In fact, it’s a major selling point of mine. But it’s still MY choice.
Lee:
You said: “I will continue to advocate companies building websites that are usable – if you disagree with that then perhaps you should read someone else’s site.” Anything like ‘If you don’t like our website, shop somewhere else’? Just had to ask.
No, it’s not the same.
My comment referred to the content of this site. Inaccessibility physically prevents people from using a site.
If people don’t want to learn accessibility or don’t agree, then they won’t want to read some of my articles. But I’m not going to change what I teach simply because someone doesn’t like the subject matter.
However that doesn’t mean that if they want to learn something else about Web design or HTML they aren’t welcome here.
Trying to equate that the content might make some people not want to read my site, with the fact that a non-accessible site will prevent some people from reading it is a false argument.
Just to be clear, I’m not offended by your comment, but putting it in the post just fans the flames – as most people won’t put the logic together to see that the argument is false.
I agree with that. I actually didn’t think of it that way. It PHYSICALLY prevents them from viewing. Good point.
But… I still think it should be up to the individual/company to make their site accessible. They should not be FORCED to do it. If they choose not to make their site accessible, then they lose business. I strongly feel it should be up to the individual/company.
I agree with making physical stores accessible. The next store could be miles away. But on the web? The next store is just a click away. There are a hundred other sites selling the same thing for a comparable price.
I just don’t think someone should be forced to do it. If they want to make their site accessible, be user friendly, improve public relations (hey, THIS company is accessible), etc etc then kudos for them. Just don’t MAKE them do it.
Lee: Well, my question was less on whether the law / judgment should be in place but more on how this might affect people now that it is. Arguing in this forum that the law is a bad law isn’t going to take it off the books. But describing what you are (or aren’t) doing to mitigate the affects of the law might help others reading this site prevent needing their own Target-style settlement.
To take a rambling post back to the point, it seems to me like the point of my question was hijacked to allow people to complain about the ADA law. When all I was asking was if people felt it would impact them or their sites.
Personally, I already try to be as accessible as possible, because it benefits SEO – and most of the sites I build rely on traffic for revenue. So this settlement won’t affect the way I do business much. But if I were a Web developer for a large retail store, I might be very nervous right now, or be spending a lot of time boning up on accessibility.
In general, I think that a lawsuit against any group that has a website that doesn’t fit whatever criteria the prosecution side deems should be there is almost idiotic.
If you go to a web site and it does not conform to access or other wants/needs and the person or persons do not like that layout and operation, then go to another site.
A loss of customers is the biggest wake up call a company or other group can get.
The only trouble with this type of voluntary abstainment, is for the people who are upset by the site, to actually stay away from the site and any wholesale/retail outlet attached to the corporate umbrella.
While I am a strong ally of web page accessibility, I cannot help but feel offended by the lawsuit.
I tend to respect the disabled people, but when they sue me for what I shouldn’t be obliged to give them ( but I do because I want to be helpful to them, have them as visitors and respect the Internet standards ), I feel a hole in the justice.
It’s like having a publishing house sued for not including an index and page numbers in their books or having a too small font size. Ridiculous, even though it makes the product much worse. But after all, I do prefer accessible websites.
And I wonder, since I live in Europe, in a country that has by far no such laws about the Internet, how will they manage to start a lawsuit on me?
I hope this will be the only such lawsuit in the history of the Internet. And I hope there will be more accessible websites, because the owners want so, not because they are forced.
Many of you who have commented here have completely missed the point of the Target case. The ADA allows a class of people to sue because they are refused access to a place of commerce – this is very similiar to the civil rights laws we now accept as just and moral (right?).
Just replace a visual disability with skin color and you understand the issue. Does everyone who commented against the ADA really believe that Target should be able to refuse to allow anyone with white skin in their stores? How would you feel if all of a sudden anyone with blue eyes could not use Google? A visual disability is exactly the same as skin or eye color – it’s just a characteristic of people.
Also consider that making a site accessible is the same as putting lights in your store – you can consider it an infringement on your rights to run your business as you see fit, or you can be a smart business person and consider it a cost of business. And if you picked the former, should you be surprised if you get sued by a sighted person who trips over something becuase they couldn’t see it?
Finally, businesses are considered ‘public accomodations’ in this country, and are therefore subject to regulation by the democratically elected government. Like most democracies, the voters generally demand that the government focus on the greater good instead of what works best for businesses, thus things like OSHA, unions, taxes, etc. Smart business realize this is unavoidable and work to make such ‘greater good’ issues work in their favor (i.e., Toyota – hybrid cars) – stupid ones fight against them (i.e., Ford and unions, seat belts, air bags, CAFE standards, etc.)and slowly become seen as inferior.