ALT="Target's task: tags to add"

TITLE="IT Blogwatch", where we watch Target pay handsomely for its "failure" to make its Web site work for blind people. Not to mention how they advertise pizza in Australia...

Heather Havenstein reports:

Target Corp. has agreed to a $6 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed in early 2006 by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and others charging that blind people cannot access Target.com.
...
Target also agreed to update the site to accommodate sight-impaired online consumers, and to let the NFB regularly test those improvements ... [and] to provide periodic training sessions for its Web developers and a quarterly summary of complaints received about accessibility to the NFB.

The plaintiffs in the case -- which also included the NFB of California and a blind college student Bruce Sexton -- claimed that Target's Web site was inaccessible and in violation of federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities. Experts have said that this case may serve to expand the scope of how disability laws affect Web sites.

David Chartier adds:

Specifically at issue in Target's case is a lack of "alt" tags throughout its site, tags which are used by screen reading technology to help disabled users navigate web sites. Target tried to argue that its web site is not covered by the ADA, a civil rights law passed in 1990, saying that only its physical stores were ... Despite the law being unclear as to whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to websites, the company will pay a substantial fee and update its web site to make it accessible to the blind.

In February 2006, Bruce Sexton Jr., a student at the University of California-Berkeley and president of the California Association of Blind Students, sued Target because its web site was inaccessible to the blind. Filed in conjunction with the National Federation of the Blind, the suit was used as to spotlight many corporate sites that don't play well—if at all—with screen reading technology.

Web technologies and techniques have been advancing, but Sexton and the NFB are worried that the blind are being left behind.

Philip Hutchison lays it on the line:

Think accessibility isn’t a big deal, and is only one of those issues “the other guy” has to deal with? So did Target. And now they’ve lost $6,000,000 because of it.
...
Any web developer worth their salt will tell you this situation was completely avoidable ... It’s amazing to me that companies as big as Target have effectively said “so what?” to such a significant number of potential customers ... Probably because developers who code with accessibility in mind are still considered specialists in a small niche, when we should really be at a point where they’re a dime a dozen.

Accessibility best practices should be a no-brainer, taught in entry-level web development classes alongside standardized (x)HTML markup and valid CSS.

But Jared Smith reminds us of some niceties:

Target makes no admission or concession that its website is or ever was inaccessible ... Target admits no violations of the ADA or any other law.
...
I think the majority of the accessibility community was hoping for some long-awaited case law that might better define the relationship of the Internet and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While there have been many lawsuits claiming discrimination under the ADA because of inaccessible web sites, there is virtually no case law that clarifies that the ADA applies to web sites. This settlement clearly provides no additional insight.
...
Corporations ... can now take comfort in the fact that if they aren’t big/rich enough for NFB or others to engage in a complicated and expensive lawsuit, that they can maintain the status quo of, at best, marginal accessibility ... Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled with the outcome and I do think it will motivate the largest corporate retailers to take accessible a bit more seriously, but without clarification of their true legal obligation, I fear the influence of this settlement will not be very significant.

And Charles Signorile is incensed:

This ruling is in direct opposition to a lawsuit against Southwest Airlines which ruled ... "The plain and unambiguous language of the statute and relevant regulations does not include Internet Web sites."

Unfortunately “plain and unambiguous language” does not have any meaning in the San Francisco Judicial system. Rather than read the law as it is written ... Judge Marilyn Hall Patel allowed the lawsuit to proceed based on how the law should be written, at least in the opinion of the Judge.
...
I suppose it is only a matter of time before You Tube will be required to add closed captioning to their user videos as well.

Matt May offers this additional nugget:

One twist in this case was the application of two California laws: the Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Both of these offer protections over and above those of the ADA, for California citizens, such as the named plaintiff, Bruce Sexton. Even if we ignore the ADA for a moment, this means that sites who do business in California could be liable under these laws for denying access.

Whatever the legal ramifications may be, those of us who advocate accessibility don’t want to make this into a series of legal battles. There are no winners there. (Okay, besides the lawyers.)
...
The best thing you can do is to prepare yourself and your site with a little education and some fine tuning. When you’re in a lawyer’s office talking about the ADA, or any other accessibility statute, chances are you’ve already missed out on the most important part of the conversation. And that’s going to cost you, whether you win or lose.

H. Scott Leviant agrees:

Other companies have decided to avoid litigation (probably to foster more goodwill with consumers). Amazon.com and RadioShack both agreed to make changes to their sites without protracted litigation. Following Target's settlement, I think it is likely that online retailers can expect a rapid surge in litigation of this type.

And frankly, the only reason why I am not 100% certain that this area of litigation will explode is that Internet-linked issues seem to deter some otherwise confident litigators because of an irrational fear of all things digital.

And finally...

• How they advertise pizza in Australia: by ripping off YouTube memes [no closed captions, but it sorta goes, "Cluck cluck cluck cluck-cluck cluck cluck-cluck"]

Buffer overflow:

• Paul Glazowski: Google Clues Developers in on Android Market
• Boycott Novell: Novell Gets Close to Linux Foundation, Microsoft Gets Closer to Novell
• 4sysops: FREE: 3D Traceroute - displays traceroute information in 3D
• Steve Bass: The Dark Side of Dual Monitors
• Coding Horror: Protecting Your Cookies: HttpOnly
• Marshall Kirkpatrick: Google Moves to Mainstream RSS With A Simple Name Change
• Jack Schofield: Want to increase profits? Avoid iTunes
• The Human Capitalist: SaaS Model to "Collapse" According to Lawson CEO

Other Computerworld bloggers:

• SJVN: R.I.P. Exchange?
• Frank Hayes: Steve Jobs death notice: Oh, really?
• John Brandon: Jack Jia, CEO of Baynote, talks social interaction
• Shark Tank: You might say that
• Shark Bait: Clean versus delete

Like this stuff? Subscribe to the RSS feed.

Richi Jennings is an independent analyst/adviser/consultant, specializing in blogging, email, and spam. A 22 year, cross-functional IT veteran, he is also an analyst at Ferris Research. You can follow him on Twitter, pretend to be Richi's friend on Facebook, or just use boring old email: blogwatch@richi.co.uk.

Previously in IT Blogwatch:

• Cisco gobbles Exchange-a-like vendor PostPath
• Mac OS bigger in business (but still small)
• iPhone doesn't have 3G issues, probably