Comments on: An update on the Target accessibility lawsuit

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:12:39 +0000

Well, that’s an interesting question: the issue was defined only in civil court because injustice is not equal to illegality. What was determined was that the service received by disabled users of Target’s website was injust — but illegality has very little to do with justice.

Whether something is illegal is entirely dependent on the existence of a specific law which defines that action as illegal. Until a criminal court decides to interpret an existing law to make accessible website a legal requirement or until a legislative action creates a new law defining that requirement, it’s simply not illegal.

By: [no name]

[no name] — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:53:35 +0000

While this has been a hot button issue for sometime, this lawsuit really didn’t define much in the matter of law. Target was required to pay damages, but yet in the eyes of the law, they did not commit an illegal act. If a civil court deems this an injustice to a group of people, shouldn’t a criminal court define it as well?

By: Amazon.com working with the National Federation of the Blind | Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:32:23 +0000

[…] that Amazon powers the technology behind the Target website which is currently the focus of a National Federation of the Blind sponsored lawsuit. The services powered by Amazon constitute a not insubstantial portion of the web, and a […]

By: Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design | Oracle being sued for inaccessible software package

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:36:19 +0000

[…] lawsuit on the inaccessibility of a software product, this suit is fundamentally different from the Target lawsuit currently in process. That lawsuit, dealing with a commercial website’s accessibility level […]

By: Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design | E-Accessibility Day: December 3rd, 2006

Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design | E-Accessibility Day: December 3rd, 2006 — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:14:16 +0000

[…] Although the Target accessibility lawsuit is certainly a big stick in the name of accessibility, success in espousing accessibility needs to have a carrot as well: good information about the increased financial success of accessible websites should help draw corporations into the accessibility frame of mind. […]

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:05:01 +0000

I certainly agree with you - having the issue of accessibility settled in law is not necessarily advantageous for developers. Your example of keyboard shortcuts is a good one - “accesskeys” are a tool I generally prefer not to make use of, since they controvert the natural behavior of the user agent. If they were required by law, then I would be in the position of needing to use a technique which I actually believe to decrease the accessibility of a site.

I don’t think that it’s likely to actually decrease business for web developers. Although the increase in liability is certainly likely, the massive growth in internet commerce seems too great an audience to be ignored by most businesses.

Still, it’s a valid point, and you can never be certain what market forces will accomplish.

By: rbiggs

rbiggs — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:32:16 +0000

While I applaud the movement toward accessibility, several things popped into mind about how well the case can fare and what its impact on Web Workers might be.

One of the things I wonder is: how far must a web property go to be in compliance with physical-world standards for accessibility. One article I read (and I have just started) mentioned Target’s site did not employ keyboard shortcuts. I can certainly understand why relying on a mouse would be a little far-fetched. When I walk through a store, I expect “accessibility” to mean (in a physical sense) the ability for people of varying physical abilities to get around the store and “access” areas and information. I do NOT expect signs in Braille describing the color, washing instructions, and brand label of a piece of clothing. I also don’t expect there to be devices that allow a sight-impaired person to understand how to find the escalator or maps through mazes of clothing racks. I would expect “accessibility” on a website to help users “get around” the virtual property and, in the absence of humans around to ask questions of and get pointers, functionality to facilitate understanding the geography and content of the property. But again, how far is far enough?

Another thing I wonder is: what impact might this have web designers/developers. On the one hand, it could mean more business for us; on the other hand, it could mean LESS business because now websites have become a touchpoint for liability.

While I was already aware of the W3C standards, I was not aware that there has been activity in the matter of accessibility in other places as well. A quick Googling found this, for in instance: Illinois Web Accessibility Standards, which includes links to such references as Federal Section 508. -ron

By: Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design | What’s AIR?

Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design | What’s AIR? — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:44:25 +0000

[…] I note that Jim Thatcher was recently appointed a senior research fellow at Knowbility, and although it’s unclear to me how much impact that position is likely to have on day-to-day operations, it does demonstrate that they are attempting to connect themselves with well-positioned experts in the field. (For the record, Jim Thatcher is also the expert witness testifying in the Target Corporation vs National Federation of the Blind law suit.) Filed under: Accessibility by Joe Dolson […]

By: Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design | David Berlind on Web Accessibility

Joe Dolson Accessible Web Design | David Berlind on Web Accessibility — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:57:13 +0000

[…] I referenced an article of his in May, on the subject of the lawsuit against Target Corporation. I only mentioned the article briefly, but today I feel I need to cover it more thoroughly. […]