Target (the retailer) sued because their website isn't

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: FoBoT
why don't they just fix it so blind people can buy their crap?
they don't want more customers?

I've developed a site that was funded by a government agency, so we were required to make it section 508 compliant... it wasn't terribly difficult, the main things we had to do was make sure every image had an alt attribute and add an anchor so blind people could skip to the main content of the page.

This an interesting case... they're required by law to make their B&M store accessible to handicapped people, so I can see the reasoning for requiring that their web store be accessible too. But then where do you draw the line? Should all websites have to do it? I think not.

WTF, next time you work on a government site, make sure normal people can f'ing read. I've had to use some recently, and I'd rather get audited by the IRS than navigate some of these sites.

 

[Icanoutsmokeany1]

This is akin to suing Chevy because their car can't drive itself. Having a disability means you are disabled, meaning you won't be able to enjoy certain things...like the current internet.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: FoBoT
why don't they just fix it so blind people can buy their crap?
they don't want more customers?

I've developed a site that was funded by a government agency, so we were required to make it section 508 compliant... it wasn't terribly difficult, the main things we had to do was make sure every image had an alt attribute and add an anchor so blind people could skip to the main content of the page.

This an interesting case... they're required by law to make their B&M store accessible to handicapped people, so I can see the reasoning for requiring that their web store be accessible too. But then where do you draw the line? Should all websites have to do it? I think not.

WTF, next time you work on a government site, make sure normal people can f'ing read. I've had to use some recently, and I'd rather get audited by the IRS than navigate some of these sites.

Like the IRS website maybe?

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Icanoutsmokeany1
This is akin to suing Chevy because their car can't drive itself. Having a disability means you are disabled, meaning you won't be able to enjoy certain things...like the current internet.

blind people use the internet extensively
go make friends with some blind people, maybe they'll give you a clue

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Icanoutsmokeany1
This is akin to suing Chevy because their car can't drive itself. Having a disability means you are disabled, meaning you won't be able to enjoy certain things...like the current internet.

blind people use the internet extensively
go make friends with some blind people, maybe they'll give you a clue

I know someone without arms who uses a keyboard/mouse with his feet. :shocked:

EDIT: And if I recall correctly, there was a member here at AT who had the same disability and also used his feet. Didn't he post a video?

 

[Icanoutsmokeany1]

Can blind people watch Youtube or other media provided by the internet? What they need to invent, if they haven't, is a pad the can dynamically display braile text from any website, that way you can be blind and deaf and still enjoy the net.

 

[Shawn]

Never heard of a blind person using the internet before. Figured that they'd be SOL.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Icanoutsmokeany1
Can blind people watch Youtube or other media provided by the internet? What they need to invent, if they haven't, is a pad the can dynamically display braile text from any website, that way you can be blind and deaf and still enjoy the net.

Whistler used such a device in the movie Sneakers, not sure if it was real or if it was just a movie prop. He wasn't deaf, he was just blind. Maybe they thought the braille thing was cooler than text to speech software.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: FoBoT
why don't they just fix it so blind people can buy their crap?
they don't want more customers?

I've developed a site that was funded by a government agency, so we were required to make it section 508 compliant... it wasn't terribly difficult, the main things we had to do was make sure every image had an alt attribute and add an anchor so blind people could skip to the main content of the page.

This an interesting case... they're required by law to make their B&M store accessible to handicapped people, so I can see the reasoning for requiring that their web store be accessible too. But then where do you draw the line? Should all websites have to do it? I think not.

WTF, next time you work on a government site, make sure normal people can f'ing read. I've had to use some recently, and I'd rather get audited by the IRS than navigate some of these sites.

It wasn't actually a government site, it was a website for a non-profit research organization that was funded by the government (the website was, not the organization).

But once the people in charge of the content learned that we could make tooltips with javascript the site became more or less unreadable. They were so intent on people not having to scroll that they stuck every possible piece of information that they could into a tooltip.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Yet another reason to repeal the ADA and write a law that makes sense.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Icanoutsmokeany1
This is akin to suing Chevy because their car can't drive itself. Having a disability means you are disabled, meaning you won't be able to enjoy certain things...like the current internet.

It's more like suing Target for not making their store wheelchair accessible, which they're required by law to do.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Shawn
Never heard of a blind person using the internet before. Figured that they'd be SOL.

You ever hear or blind people doing anything at all?? I don't, but I'm sure they don't pass thier days feeling sorry for themselves. all disabilities aside, I think this is dumb because its like sueing some code/program owner because the software doesnt do what you want it to, even though it works perfectly fine the way they want. like sueing apple because macosx doesnt run on my lawnmower.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yet another reason to repeal the ADA and write a law that makes sense.

Agreed. The ADA has issues.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: randay
Damn, wish I was disabled so I could sue the crap outta people.

if you chop off your head, i think that counts for a disability
try it and let us know how it goes

sweet! now I just gotta find a big company that discriminates against head-impaired people! I'm gonna be rich!

i think you could then join in on this suit, if you are headless, you will be blind

I don't like the word headless. As far as I'm concerned, my head is the part of my body where I actually am, so if you sever my neck I'd consider myself bodiless, not headless.

You could still see, but you be an everything-amputee.

 

[Miramonti]

I'm not

sure A
TOT is

acc
ess i b
le to the
blind ei
ther.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I'm not

sure A
TOT is

acc
ess i b
le to the
blind ei
ther.

it is
there was a thread a few years ago about something , so i got my blind coworker to sign up and he answered the question. i don't think he posted more than 1-2 times. he likes read the register.uk tech site among others

 

[MrChad]

Section 508 compliance has been around for a while, but to my knowledge it only applies to federal government web sites and web applications. Extending that to all commercial websites is unnecessary and heavy-handed, in my opinion.

 

[XZeroII]

I got my tires slashed at Target once. I'll never shop there again!

 

[ElFenix]

the plaintiffs in this case will get a 5% off coupon, while the lawyers will pocket 10 million dollars


i swear, it's better than winning the lottery. if i had my wits about me the day the sony rootkit was revealed i'd be thinking about retirement already.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the plaintiffs in this case will get a 5% off coupon, while the lawyers will pocket 10 million dollars


i swear, it's better than winning the lottery. if i had my wits about me the day the sony rootkit was revealed i'd be thinking about retirement already.

Are they suing for money, or suing to force Target to make their website accessible to blind people?

And I figured the lawyers were probably employed by this group, so they wouldn't pocket anything other than their salary.

 

[doze]

This is crazy, and I can't believe anyone would sue a company so they could spend money there. Target does not really sell anything special. What ever happened to the "I'll take my business elsewhere" mindset. If blind people really want to shop at Target then why not just contact Target corporate HQ and simply ask to make the site accessible?

I still don't get the whole idea of online shopping for consumer goods if you are blind. Online shopping is based on sight only, but if your blind it is probably nice to touch/smell/taste/hear what your buying first.

 

[KK]

This is bullsh1t. That's all I got to say.

 

[Winchester]

I can just see deaf people suing Bose because they can't hear the sound coming out of the speakers.



PSA: Not poking fun of disabled people. My wife works with deaf people.

 

[Kalmah]

That's it!! I'm going to find a Finnish website and sue them because it's not English accessible.

Don't they understand that those who speak English are people to?

 

[j00fek]

im a little liberal, but this is just worthless.