For those following the case of website consumer against website retail, in this case, Target, for not being accessible for special needs visitors, a new article sparked some new discussion.
Called, Blind Web surfers sue Target: Suit alleges that the retailer’s Web site is inaccessible for visually impaired, the article’s angle is the viewpoint of blind users, who rely on screenreader software such as JAWS, to access websites.
The fact that the Target website made online purchasing difficult to impossible for a JAWS user brought on a lawsuit.
My irritiation with the coverage of this lawsuit is that it’s a marketing fiasco that is NOT reaching companies and corporations that really need to be paying attention. Unless presented with a business case, many people in management positions have their hands covering their ears, singing Iron Butterfly’s 17 minute long Inagaddadavida to themselves, rather than listening to their customers or clients.
In forums like Cre8asiteforums, where we’re discussing this topic (again), in Why Was Target The Only One?, those interested in accessibility are present and accountable. These forum posts are little more than us preaching to our own choir. We KNOW the situation and we KNOW standards compliancy is the logical route to take.
I feel that this lawsuit, while raising the issue of special needs web usage up several notches on the mainstream radar, is not finding its way to CEO’s, presidents, VP’s, department directors, managers and project managers. Companies that design, develop and sell software applications aren’t testing with blind users. They don’t consider a business case for carpal tunnel sufferers or MS sufferers who can’t use a mouse.
It’s not about who can buy earrings and toasters from Target, or not. It’s not about whether JAWS struggles with mangled up code. Websites that do work are a click away.
It’s whether or not companies are united in the belief that the Internet is a global medium, or just limited to whatever was agreed on during that 9am coffee and donuts meeting last Tuesday. If the potential for a lawsuit is not making a dent in corporate-speak, what will?
Target apparently feels they don’t need to be Section 508 or Accessibility standards compliant because they believe the Americans With Disabilities Act law only covers physical spaces.
A physical space, in today’s world, is no longer something you arrive at by a transport vehicle. To my way of thinking, my house with my computer that can take me to an online order website IS a physical space, regardless of whether or not I can see the order form or use a mouse to access it.
Has no one been reading the statistics on the age of the USA population? (It may be similar outside the US too.) The number of older computer users is escalating and along with them, physical ailments that begin to make using computers difficult. Not preparing for them is a huge mistake.
Finally, accessibility is far bigger in outreach than the narrow viewpoint the news media forces it into. Software that records websites for audio playback later is a huge boon for a busy society that finds little time for reading but can listen instead. Those who have trouble reading, can’t stay focused or suffer from mild forms of seeing impairment all benefit from sound recordings. Websites that are coded for audio usage are smart.
The Target lawsuit and others like it are getting the word out, but their voices are not loud enough to be heard by decision makers, who need to be listening and taking immediate action. We don’t have time for court cases.
Lawsuits are simply not somebody else’s problem anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
- Follow me on Twitter to communicate and stay connected.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
CEOs and management will take note if Target is found to have breached the Act in court.
In Australia organisations like Vision Australia pander to the business case for accessibility to sell training courses, they do nothing to follow a legal path to force compliance even with the precedent case of Maguire v Sydney Olympics.
I made a case against the Australian Government for having inaccessible websites, I received no support from anyone in Australia, especially those grovelling toady business organisations selling training courses. The greedy bastards just want money and could not give a damn about rights for accessibility.
I’m sick of all this business selling training courses mentality, sue the bastards and change will follow, teaching them small snippets about using Alt tags is getting nowhere.
My review of some crap American, UK and Australian government websites including a review of the Target website.
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html#targetstore
Australian government web sites
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html
USA sites
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/USAweb.html
UK sites
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/UKweb.html
Results
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/Results.html
Study design
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/WebSurvey.html
Tim
I used to work at a porn production place, and we had the “opposite” problem. One of our customers was a blind man and his wife. He would _listen_ to the porn during the day, and choose the ones he liked, and when his wife got home they would watch them together and she would describe what was happening as they watched.
The problem arose when we added the “turing test” to our login page: Since he could not see the verification code, he could not type it in to access the site!
He wrote us an email describing the issue. To serve him, we added a check in the .php code for his username, and did not require the turing test to log in.
This led to my joking that we were the only porn production company who complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act!
The irony is astounding. Sadly some people take the position that those who are blind (disregarding any other challenged users) shouldn’t be on the web, since after all, it is a visual medium. Of course we know that the history of the Internet, only recently has it really become a visual medium.
In regards to an improved quality of life, those who may truly benefit the most are in fact those who often face considerable challenges in the physical world… getting to stores, as well as getting around the stores themselves, not to mention getting back home with items after shopping. Online of course provides an alternative where items may be delivered without the physical obstacles.
Will a lawsuit cause the change? Probably not. Instead, sooner or later, perhaps some of the big players within the respective industries will realize that there is something more compelling than threat…. opportunity.
Imagine one of Target’s major competitors stepping up and providing a site that is considerably more accessible. They will open their “doors” to a niche community (after all, this is really just one more group that can be marketed to, and obviously one that takes great interest in their “area”). Many may still shop in the stores, but just providing a viable alternative may win favor. And of course, the marketing plays to everyone, after all, anyone who can claim to be meeting this special needs comes off much better publicly than those who turn their backs… and of course we know that these types of improvements often end up benefiting all users by providing a more accessible and usable site, regardless of physical challenges.
A few years ago, the Sunday circulars and TV commercials started to almost always have a person in a wheelchair in them for large and small general retailers alike.
The reality is, accessibility discussions will continue to fall on deaf ears at the top levels, but not necessarily any different than any other technical discussion. To reach the people who can dictate change, you need to speak to them in their language. Once accessibility discussions are communicated in the language of sales and marketing, the message may start to get through.