http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html#skipnav
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/UKweb.html#skipnav

Tim

Web design has been in the news a lot lately. Target has been sued because its website is inaccessible to blind people, and now there’s news that grants.gov, the government website designed to streamline federal grant applications, doesn’t work with…

As it stands today, this is not the case. Government restriction has created an economy where large corporations can control a few necessities; taking free market at the knees.

The counter to all of that is that these restrictions were imposed to protect and empower those who could not speak up, and those who didn’t have the strength to fight big business, or even local business. These social organizations were created to help handicap users so that they could live a comfortable life without being chastized for things that may not be in their control. It’s your business, and it’s their free will to shop there — but it’s also their free will to protest accomodating their basic needs.

From a plain look, I can see your perspective, but it also sounds like you’ve never had this experience first hand. I’d suggest talking to visitors that fit your description and ask them how they feel.

I still feel strongly that if you are in business, and you do not take steps to accomdate an easy target market, you’re destined for failure. Wether that be marketing, PR, or pure sales.

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), represented by Berkeley’s Disability Rights Advocates as well as two law firms, has sued discounter Target, alleging that it violates California disabled-rights law because its website is not operable…

As a business owner don’t I have the right to say I could care less if I do business with a person? If I don’t want to provide disabled parking in the parking lot I own, they can go elsewhere. “Sorry about your disabling condition but it’s your problem, not mine. I hear that Bob’s place down the road has handicapped parking.” If I loose money because of my freedom to conduct business poorly, that is my problem to deal with.

I know I can refuse to accept checks, does that make those who only write checks a protected class. (sorry but I’m on a roll here) How about if I refuse to accept cash or credit cards? That only hurts me. I don’t have to do business with you because you don’t use the form of payment I accept.

Whether I have good business practices or not, I am in business, not social services. Why is it my responsibility to accomodate any single group so long as I am not discriminating against them?

The NFB has filed a lawsuit against Target.com because their web site is not accessible to people with…

I’ve read this set of comments with interest. I think part of the issue here is that “building web pages” has not been fully categorized in the legal world.

Would anyone argue, for example, that there’s no justification for forcing people to build a particular way under threat of substantial legal penalty?

Not these days: there’re plenty of building codes you need to adhere to in order to safegurd the public who may enter your facility.

In terms of the industry, writing software programs has been categorized, to a degree, and now “software engineers” are held to the same standards as other engineers. This has liability implications.

So if you start to think of websites as online storefronts – then access to them for the disabled becomes a constitutional issue, and those who create them take on that responsibility.

Of course, there’s still going to be a world of difference between a huge ecommerce firm (e.g. a “supermarket” or “department store” such as Target in this case) and a hobby site proclaiming love for a given band or something (e.g. the shed in your backyard).

Still, you are liable for accidents that occur in your shed, at least in the jurisdiction I live in. And that’s an interesting thought.

It will depend what kind of legal precedences continue to be set in order to determine how websites and their creators will be treated.

In this case at least one person has been arguing that people with basic knowledge of html should be allowed to post their webpages. And I agree with that. But really, should companies be allowed to adhere to lower standards when it disadvantages the handicapped?

After all, following well-known, industry standard practices avoids these problems. I hope Target isn’t allowed to use the “common practices” excuse to defend substandard and out-dated site practices.

It certainly wouldn’t work in accounting, engineering, or any other industry.

Why should it be allowed on the web?

Why not tackle the real problem, as you note, of “unscrupulous attorneys”? Perhaps a code of conduct, or a code of ethics?

That’s one thing software and web development teaches you (medical professions too): tackle the root cause of the problem, not the myriad of symptoms.

…though the fact that the disabled haven’t been able to persuade some corporations of this and are resorting to litigation is pretty strong evidence that it isn’t cost-effective in at least some cases.

That’s one perspective. It’s another to notice that design and development decisions are often made by those with the least amount of experience in this field. Where clients typically hope that we can design what they need, we hope we can design what their clients need from them — the end result being many large businesses too afraid or too bloated to notice growing trends and decisions. The fear to notice flaws in your company is a well documented discussion in business management. You see that handicap users lack of pull on big business and need to use litigation as a battle, a weak case for standards? I look at it as a sad case for companies that lack the internal criticism and voice to notice their clientele asking for an improved method to purchase products. I’d challenge anyone to find one company that can prove to me why standards development would not save them money and improve their market spread in the long run — including target.

As a notice, did you see that Target updated their site in less than 24 hours to fix one of the larger usability flaws? Pretty cost effective turn around — now handicap users can log into the pharmacy section of target without the use of a mouse.

They were offered 10 months to do this, to change barely 2 lines of code — and they finally did it only after the threat of a lawsuit. That right there is a counter arguement to our disagreement with the suit.

I’m a strong believer in a Laissez Faire economy; free to balance it’s own market… but in this case, large businesses cared little for their customers.