Swanky Conservative

US District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel has allowed the lawsuit against Target to go forward and she’s certified the case as a class action. The lawsuit in question is one filed by the National Federation for the Blind and it alleges that Target’s website is inaccessible to blind computer users. Parts of the shopping cart did not work without a mouse, something that is a problem to a blind computer user. California law makes it illegal for someone doing business to discriminate against those with disabilities. The “doing business” phrase is very important here, as that would appear to exempt websites such as blogs and others that are purely informative: personal sites, newspapers, forums, etc.

Michelle Malkin has a posting up about this and she asks,

Can they really coerce businesses in this manner? Won’t the ultimate outcome be to discourage companies from operating websites altogether?

Fair question. The NFB began talking with Target about the website’s deficiencies 10 months prior to filing suit. I can’t find it documented anywhere but Target’s response was reported to be anything but accommodating. In addition, web accessibility guidelines have been around since 1999 so it’s not a new idea being sprung upon people. Another point is that the Internet, namely the Web, is the medium for an ever-increasing set of daily routine tasks. Email, bank statements, commerce, trading, organizing, fund-raising, entertainment. As we depend more and more on the Web for daily lives, the burden of accessibility increases as well. Lastly, there are hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities in the United States alone. This is a large group of potential consumers. Why would a business not target them?

The marketplace. I prefer that as an arena of solutions over court-mandated ones. It’s my nature. Adapt, improvise, overcome. Blind people, and others with disabilities, are at a disadvantage due to nature. We would be ignoring our humanity if we simply left them behind. Businesses would be ignoring potential profits by leaving them behind. May as well toss your day’s earnings down the sewer. Or give it all to the IRS; your choice as to which is a bigger waste.

Some disclosure: I volunteer and have done contract work for Knowbility.org, a nonprofit dedicated to increasing awareness of accessible technology. I know people involved as expert witnesses for this case. I am speaking for myself, here, not for anyone else or any organization.

I have built websites for over a decade. As my learning progressed, I became aware of the need for accessibility. And the benefits of it. Want to know a dirty little secret about Search Engine Optimization? (SEO, for those in the know.) The bulk of SEO is building accessible websites. It is in the best interest of a website operator who wishes to reach the greatest audience possible to design accessible sites. Target, as a company wishing to provide services and sell goods via the Web, should build its site along established accessibility guidelines.

It is a shame that it is going to court. I’d rather it not. I think the worst thing that could happen with regards to the Web is that the US legal system steps in and attempts to centrally mandate how we do things online. Nothing innovative could come from that. But I also think it is reasonable to expect that disabilities law extends, to some degree, into online spaces. If more and more of our daily lives is going online, then many of our laws must, too.

Just don’t go nuts, there, lawyers.

Oh, the commentor known as “DesertLover,” on Malkin’s site, is wrong on a few things. First, he/she says,

First of all … Although I can fully understand the problems of accessing websites for those with eyesight problems this type of need is normally taken care of with software the individual purchases and installs on their own computer … not by the website itself …

Yes, a user installs software that reads the page being browsed. But the designer/developer of the site must build with recognized standards in order for the reader to detect and read what’s there. A screen reader can’t read out an image, making the “alt” attribute for the img tag important. If DesertLover is trying to point out the responsibility on the user’s end, that’s one thing. (While we’re at it, don’t forget the responsibility of web page software vendors, and assistive technology vendors. They share some of the load, too.)

Secondly, DesertLover writes,

Secondly … to carry this a step further … to be fully compliant the software at the website end would be required to be able to translate and verbalize the text into every spoken language on the face of the earth … not just the language in which the text was written bty the website owners … fail to do that and you would face never-ending lawsuits from people that didn’t speak English or whatever the native language of the website …

I’d like to know where he/she is getting this. I’ve never seen this in any requirement for website accessibility. That statement in pure FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). WCAG 1.0 states that a document (the site) must declare it’s primary language. This can be done in the document’s HTML tag, like this:

<html lang="en-us">

DesertLover, please source your claims. Spreading disinformation doesn’t help anyone.

Accessibility tips and tidbits.

• Web Content Authoring Guidelines (WCAG)1.0, and WCAG 2.0.
• Jim Thatcher’s page on the Target lawsuit, including his testing of Target’s site.
• 
  Derek Featherstone’s blog posting on the case, including some more detail on Target.com’s deficiencies.
• Some commentors on Malkin’s site asked if Hillary and Obama’s websites were accessible. Here’s a brief look at presidential candidates’ sites with regard to accessibility. Full disclosure: This link goes to my other website.
• Top Ten reasons to build accessible websites