Sorry for the bad pun in the title.
In February I noted that Target is being sued in a class action lawsuit because its website purportedly discriminates against blind users or anyone else using screen reader technology to shop at the website. I wasn’t shy about my opinion either:
… I support this guy, and I think that if the judicial system chooses again to say that the rules of brick-and-mortar stores do not apply online, screw that. The Internet is no longer a toy or hobby. Social and consumer pressures exist – acknowledge this and don’t let people get away with laziness at the expense of the disabled.
Last week a judge ruled that this lawsuit can go forward – she believes that
… the ‘ordinary meaning’ of the ADA’s prohibition against discrimination in the enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or privileges, is that whatever goods or services the place provides, it cannot discriminate on the basis of disability in providing enjoyment of those goods and services.
I think she’s right – if you offer the public a consumerist service you need to ensure that you do not do so in a discriminatory fashion. Period.
Everything takes time to catch up to the technology. Noted that everything moves faster on the net (technology wise, not always progress wise). Granted a big company like Target should put the effort to be more inclusive, but if the lawsuit stands, does it mean that every mom & pop operation with a even a simple website needs to start coding for screen reader technology? I see it more as a choice, if Target wants to market to a broader group, they should include screen reader compatible web pages, if they don’t want to spend their money on that it should be up to them.
The point behind this lawsuit, or at least one of them, is that making your website accessible is not difficult. There are specific standards for web pages that, when followed properly, will result in a site that is accessible. Not following the standards is simply lazy work.
Why should a company want to promote lazy work that results in inaccessible products? Money. That’s the sole reason.
I think there are some rules out there that change the way businesses do business to ensure that money is not the reason behind illegal activities? This should be another one.
What difference is there between Target not putting in any ramps at ALL their stores and not letting screen readers access their site properly? Are there laws about accessibility that they need to adhere to at their retail fronts? I think there are. Do mom and pop stores have to adhere to them? I think they do, if they are in an area with such laws.
I want to see the Internet as one of those places that allows everyone to access its resources. Monetary motivations be damned.
Mom and pop can hire a web designer that adheres to the standards if they want to avoid being sued.
I’m confused. You say that Target is lazy for not providing accessible web pages. Then say their products are inaccessible because it would cost money to make them accessible. Why would they make products that they can sell for $ inaccessible? Unless they feel they can’t make their money back. I wouldn’t say that’s lazy but a business decision.
If this is prohibitively expensive for Target, why would any mom and pop shop want to take this on? Maybe cheaper tools, or cheaper ways to implement these tools to make web pages more accessible would be viable solution.
While your not selling anything, your blog is on a public domain can be viewed as providing a service by informing people of social issues and your opinion of said social issues. You also allow people to express their opinion. You have links to free music services which is also entertainment and can be viewed as a resource and service. Is your web site compatible ? Would a blind person be able to contribute to this discussion or are you discriminating against them? If your website is compatible then clearly the tools are available and there is no excuse for Target or any other mom and pop shops. If not, are you sure you want say “Monetary motivations be damned” or that Target is lazy?
You and I agree Darcy – Target is not doing this because they don’t want to spend the money to do it. I may have said they were lazy simply as a segue to their true motivation: greed.
Tools for constructing accessible websites already exist. There are official guidelines for web developers to follow – they’re the same ones that were made in 1999. They’re not new. Here’s the link if you’re curious.
But let’s be realistic here – there isn’t some grande Target person who went ahead and gave this website the thumbs up. It was developed by multiple people over multiple months. The requirements for the website needed to state plainly that meeting accessiblity guidelines was required, not optional. They needed to make sure that the devs and designers on the team had the required knowledge and training to quickly and easily incorporate these guidelines. You’re right when you say it is a business decision – it was made over and over throughout the development lifecycle of that site. And that’s why they need to change it – they need to be publically told that doing this is discriminatory – plain and simple. Corporations need to start opening their eyes to the fact that online shopping is not the sole domain of the able. It has been in the past but that needs to change.
The solutions exist already – Target has chosen not to use them for business reasons. That’s as simple as it gets and that’s plain wrong in my opinion.
Now to theBside – I’d argue about providing a public service here. It’s all about my personal opinion around here. But I stand firmly that the web as a whole should be accessible. As such when I chose my ‘blog’ software I chose WordPress because it is explicitly aware of and incorporating accessibilty issues and solutions. Now is the current incarnation of theBside accessible? Sadly a lot of the final checks come down to the themes I use on the site. If I were to run the default theme it most certainly would be accessible. But I’m fickle, so I swap themes and not all the themes out there maintain the accessibility of my site. It’s something I try to take into consideration when I choose themes.
If/when I choose to actually devote some time to web development you bet your scientific ass I make it accessible. It’s a large part of why I hate Internet Explorer – it is so far from adhering to these standards that coding around its quirks is a large portion of the work involved in writing web page interfaces. Why do you need to code for it? because you know that Internet Explorer is used by over 75% of the people out there, curse each and every one of them.
The tools exist. People aren’t using them. Why not? You could as well ask why people aren’t putting ramps up to buildings. The tools exist, we know they’re useful (most people prefer the ramp even when fully able), and we know how to build them. Why is everyone not making them required? Fear of government involvement in their lives? Ignorance? Laziness? Greed? I don’t know – I do know that Target is trying to prove in court that they can discriminate. I don’t see how you can defend that.
I think that Target knows the tools exist and know there site does not adhere to the accessibility guidelines, but this arguement comes down to two points.
1. Is the site and extension of the physical store or just a service offered?
2. Since Target is a publicly traded corporation they are accountable to their share holders first and formost, so is the return on investment of making their site accessible profitable.
It doesn’t sound good to say it, but it may cost less to deal with the lawsuits than to change. Not the best argument, but realistic. Personnaly I do agree with what Kirk says, the tools are out there and there should be no reason that Target does not create more a more inclusive website.
John – your first question has been a major consideration in these kinds of situatons – and now we have a judge saying that there is no legal difference between a virtual storefront and a brick-and-mortar one. Check her quote above in the original post.
Your second point is why I tend to dislike capitalism. It always comes down to the dollar – and I think in a moral sense I disagree with that premise.
I did see the post, but this falls back to my second point. Sure Target knows where that judge stands, but they don’t have to agree. They will likely either comply with accessibility standards, or just pay off , which ever is better for their bottom line. I am sure that their lawyers are figuring out some small print for their web-site to get around this judges ruling, or they are poking around looking for a judge with a bit more corporate interest to appeal the case with.
Like I said before, I am totally with you on this issue, but I am just raising arguments. I tend to spend alot of time on the computer while I am at school
So you’re just being a Devil’s Advocate? Good lord, I thought Darcy was the only one I knew!
Speaking of which…Yes. I agree with that definition of Devil’s Advocate. I’m definitely here to teach you all 😉
It seems that the issue is much more complicated. I agree, if the tools exist they should be implemented. But…
I think comparisons to brick and mortar stores are not very useful as when Target or any other company builds a new stores there are all sorts of checks and balances in the process to ensure that new construction meets all sorts of specification including accessibility. As far as I am aware, nothing of the sort exists for the internet. Should this sort of system be put in place with internet sites? I think most people would oppose this sort of government regulation of the internet. Also, not all brick and mortar stores are accessible to all. I can think of many streets in Boston, mainly in historic areas, where the only way in to a store is via a staircase.
It must be extremely costly to Target to implement these changes because not only do they have to pay all of the lawyer fees, but they must realize the amount of negative press this would likely generate and how much this would cost them. Perhaps this a little off topic, but regarding your comment on capitalism, Kirk, I also agree this comes down to the dollar. Granted, there are many issues with capitalism but if enough people stop shopping at Target, then they will either address the issue or go out of business.
It also sounds like Microsoft, and their Internet Explorer further complicate the matter. Shouldn’t they also be held accountable for producing a product that doesn’t adhere to agreed upon standards?