A Single Article
Read it, comment, and share it with your friendsSuing companies over inaccessible websites
For the past year, the webdesign community and the public at large has been debating a case in which blind citizens are suing Target because their website is inaccessible to them. Michelle Malkin has an update on the case at her blog: Blind shoppers get green light to sue Target over website.
There are a lot of opposing viewpoints being thrown about over this issue, some seeing this from a business perspective, some from a technical perspective, and some from both perspectives. I have my own opinion which I have decided to share, and though I know there are some things that I might be wrong about, this is really what I have concluded regarding this case. Let’s talk about suing companies over inaccessible websites.
USA has an economy that thrives on the movement of money. If people stop buying and selling, if they are unable to produce goods or services and unable to purchase those goods and services from each other, the economy suffers. That is why the government wants people to be educated, to buy stocks, to shop (even frivolously), etc.
This is why it is important for people with disabilities to have the opportunity to contribute to their society, as able producers and consumers. If that means some extra effort to ensure that they can get an education, have a job, and shop like everyone else, it’s worth it. Anyone who can’t contribute to the economy is a burden on everyone else. So, it’s important that blind people can shop like everyone else. As long as it is possible for companies to provide the means of access (wheelchair ramps, alt attributes, etc.), then they should. Not because it brings them more profit, or because it’s nice to the consumer. Those are not reasons to make something mandatory. It should be mandatory because it’s important to the economy as a whole.
After all, there is a lot of legislation already that ensures that companies do not do things that will hurt the greater economy. This is where antitrust regulation comes from; forcing companies like Microsoft to stop their own monopoly practices so that other companies can compete fairly. It’s also why in some cases, companies are prevented from price gouging; because it’s bad for the economy when people can’t afford to buy the things they need. You’ll have to excuse me for oversimplifying things here, but I think I’ve made my point: government regulation of corporations is nothing new. It isn’t a bad idea either.
The role of government is to protect the individual. Well, it’s one of many roles, but it’s an important role nonetheless. In the event that a majority would act in ways that would harm the individual, the government is the only entity capable of protecting that individual. This may not be the way it happens, but it very well should be. Now, corporations are large groups, majorities if you will, that through strength in numbers (and dollars) are capable of causing a lot of economic harm. As a government should ensure a stable economy and protect the individual, regulating corporations makes sense. It might be difficult to decide exactly how that regulation should take place, but that’s why (ideally) people should have a say in the political process. Should.
So what I’m trying to say is, I think blind citizens have a right to sue a major company over an inaccessible website. I’m okay with letting the courts decide the outcome. The truth is, I’m not a big government person and I’m not crazy about government regulations, but I have come to realize that if the government doesn’t do anything to control the actions of big corporations, no one else will. Provided that the right regulations are made, I would rather have someone doing the job than no one at all.
Get a Trackback link
27 Comments
Responses to my articleThis is a tough one because accessible websites are extremely important. For certain sites such as government websites, it should certainly be the law that they must be accessible.
However, I don’t think that commerce sites should be able to be sued for being inaccessible. The consumer can shop elsewhere since it is not the only option. They are really hurting themselves more than anyone else. I don’t see it as having much of an effect on the overall economy. The blind consumer will probably still buy the same items - just at a different store. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other stores out there for them to buy the same items.
Keith: I seriously question the “they can go somewhere else” argument for two reasons:
Does that explain why the “go somewhere else” line doesn’t work?
what if the CMS is cluttered -> you need time to adapt to standards, though people need websites …
Johan: We are not talking about a company that is “trying their best.” Target has refused for years to fix their site, insisting that it would be way too expensive and opting for the expensive legal fees involved with hiring lawyers. It would actually be very easy for them to fix their site, but they don’t seem to realize that. So, moot point.
and wouldn’t it be easier for some blind folks to shop online rather than getting out to the store anyway? sure, i know plenty of HIGHLY independent blind folk who “do everything everyone else does” and really enjoy shopping in person … but i also know several who prefer to do everything over the internet. so it does seem that target is shooting themselves in the foot … missing a chunk of their demographic.
what about their site is inaccessible? (i haven’t really looked there in a while). i see the common Flash issue. Flash really needs to step up and make a way to get Flash bits accessible. UGH … their CSS file is in the main page, blech, i hate that. dunno of that affects sight readers or not, though. mmm a lot of their images are in the CSS which kills the ability to use the alt tag. must make the site something of a mush to a reader program.
grr, as a designer, i always liked the look of the target site … didn’t realize what a mess it was under the hood.
interesting post, thanks!
ender: FWIW, Adobe has made some tools for Flash accessibility but they present a drastic increase in cost and production time on top of using Flash to begin with, so I don’t think they will catch on any time soon. On the other hand, Silverlight by Microsoft is an XML-based platform that is not compiled, so according to their claims, it will be purely accessible just like (x)HTML is without any extra work on the part of the programmer. Probably a little more complicated to that but as an accessibility supporter I’m very excited about Silverlight
Christian - i had thought that i had heard of adobe/macromedia developing such tools, but i know i haven’t really seen them in my apps, so i wondered what the deal was.
i’m scared of a micro$loth application that would work and advance this! (glad for it b/c it’ll make adobe get off their rear-ends, but scared that it’s M$ getting there first!)
I agree completely, Christian. If corporations aren’t going to regulate themselves, them someone (the government) needs to do it. Rather than admitting their site needs work, they are showing a lot of hubris by letting this go to court. I really don’t understand what point they are trying to make.
As a parent of a visually impaired child, it disappoints me that Target has taken this stance. Would they lock visually impaired users out of their bricks-and-mortar stores? Absolutely not! Corporations need to understand that their websites are simply an extension of their bricks-and-mortar operations, and should be treated as such.
As a teacher of web development, accessibility is one of the main topics I stress. Until more professional developers and web development shops emphasize accessibility, corporations are leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
Troy: Thanks so much for stressing that! There aren’t enough educators out there who are doing the same.
Did they build the website, or did they hire someone?
That is not clear to me, when they build it , they could fix it. Though what if the authors are not HTML savvy, and the editor they use produces bloated HTML, XML or a mixmash of any …
As I remember it, they have an in-house development team. An online store with as many orders as Target.com couldn’t be managed any other way. It really doesn’t matter, though. The important thing to remember is that Target has more than enough money to pay even the most expensive developers to fix their site, especially since the changes would cost next to nothing. They just don’t want to.
And in the US, according to my books about web accessibility have cases where they sued sites when not accessible before. The judicial system in the US allows to refer to other cases, that would be in this case that in Santa Monica // california there was such a case when a website got sued over inaccessibility. So therefore legal action can be taken though limited to the state when applicable. It is not a federal law …
Now my question is did this site “Target” any effort to make their website accessible when they got sued by the local organisation for blind people. And is it fair that one company gets the heat while other sites in California also have accessibility issues. Why are they not sued? In this case a blind person takes action because he/she could not access one particular website. It is like finding a needle in a haystack…
I
Target has not made any effort, ever. This case has dragged on for years and they have preferred to continue to fight it rather than fix their site. As for one company getting the heat, you have to start somewhere. From what I have heard, Target.com is far worse than other online stores.
” From what I have heard, Target.com is far worse than other online stores. “
Worse or not, any discomfort that a disabled person has when buying stuff over the Net. It can be small or big but I am not sure that any online store is 100% accessible.
From what I have read, accessibility should be done before building the site and not after.
Johan: Both of your points are obvious. Doesn’t change the situation though. I guess we’ll see how things work out.
It is about money and time. That is how business goes.
A government should subsidize firms that make accessible websites, firms love discounts. And hiring a person that deals with accessibility issues. A designer/developer should not do all that stuff alone.
Johan: Do you know who Target is?
I understand where you’re coming from, and I do agree that it would be easier for them to fix the site. But I still think they have alternatives, including going to the brick and mortar store. It doesn’t make it right to exclude the group, but I still don’t think they should be sued over the matter.
Keith: That is where you are wrong. Target offers online-only exclusive deals through their website that cannot be found in any of their brick-and-mortar stores. In order to stop discriminating against blind customers, they must either stop offering the deals entirely, or make their site accessible to blind people.
Johan: Do you know who Target is?
An online store for US folk, I live in Europe. So I never heard of it.
Though I visited the site today, flash seems to be used a lot.
Flash has accessibility features build in the program …
But why do you ask … Because it is the top online store,…
I didn’t know that they offer web-exclusive items and I suppose this would sort of change the situation. This raises a few questions for me that hopefully you can help to answer.
-How far does the current law go in specifying what disabled people should be able to access? Do they need to be able to access every item from every store?
One example that is admittedly a somewhat different situation is the T in Boston. They provide access to disabled riders at some of their stops. However, not every stop is accessible. Therefore disabled riders can ride the T, but only from certain stops. In my mind this is akin to Target giving access to only some of its items.
Keith: The law stipulates that companies shouldn’t discriminate. Giving sighted shoppers a disadvantage by making certain prices available to them and not to the blind is discrimination.
The comparison to the T is a bit different. For one thing, it is a lot more costly to
run wheelchair-accessible busesbuild wheelchair-accessible stops than it is to add alt attributes to images. Also, the T can argue that disabled riders still have access to the transportation and can reach any destination, even if it is a bit complicated. The blind shoppers, on the other hand, are completely without access to these deals as long as they can’t see their computer screens. There is no alternative.Why should disabled people be limited in their access to ANYTHING ?? Are they 2nd class citizens not worthy of full access to everything , including on-line shopping ? Why should they be discriminated against just because their bodies are not ‘perfect’ ??
This goes beyond Target, though Target is the high profile case that is noticed. I work in the healthcare sector, and there are websites for HOSPITALS that are a nightmare when it comes to accessibility. That, IMO, is nothing short of unconscionable. I recently viewed some of these hospital websites with a screen reader app I loaded on my pc - I feel sorry for the person using a screen reader who is looking for information on those sites, there is precious little there for them that makes any sense. Links that say ‘custom page’.. custom page for what, exactly ???? Use of image maps with nothing that describes what is being linked to.. it’s frightening.
This is ignorance - and laziness - and it’s another lawsuit waiting to happen. The people who produce these sites are clueless and I’m betting they don’t even know what accessibility is !
My sites in this realm may not be perfect, but anyone using assistive technology will have little trouble finding information on my sites.
Target is just the tip of the iceberg !
@Diane: I completely agree. The fact that sites which are expected to be accessible are not, is a complete failure of the accessibility standards. We need developers who are dedicated to web accessibility to take stand when clients don’t want to make a site accessible because it may cost a few extra bucks. (I would argue that accessibility should be considered from the beginning, so it should cost anything “extra”.)
If developers would make accessibility a integral part of their development process, it doesn’t matter if ‘the CMS is cluttered’ or anything else. If a developer can’t make an accessible website, how can they be considered a professional developer?
For you commenters that are defending Target, quit making excuses for a large corporation- they have the resources and the budget to make the necessary changes. They brought this on themselves by refusing to even try to make the site accessible.
By the way, until you have tried to use the web with a visual impairment, I don’t think you are qualified to comment about what a visually impaired person should do.
I apologize for the dual posting– I guess my browser hiccupped.
Anyway, I did some research and it seems that the Target store uses the Amazon.com e-commerce engine. Should/could Amazon be included as a defendant?
Unless the Amazon e-commerce engine is inaccessible in and of itself, then Amazon should not be considered a defendant. You shouldn’t be held accountable for the ineptitude of companies that use your software.
Leave a comment
Share your thoughts with the worldYou can use Markdown, or you can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>Please keep comments respectful and on topic.
This form is guarded by Akismet, so don't waste your time trying to submit spam. It won't work. Ever.