Topic: Slashdot- Should Online Stores Be Subject To ADA? (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="http://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=28613" title="Pages that link to Topic: Slashdot- Should Online Stores Be Subject To ADA? (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic: Slashdot- Should Online Stores Be Subject To ADA? <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
Petskull
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: 127 Halcyon Road, Marenia, Atlantis
Insane since: Aug 2000

IP logged posted posted 11-06-2006 23:44 Edit Quote

Slashdot is carrying a story on a lawsuit about a website's non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thought I'd share-

quote:

"HTML tutorials usually mention alt tags for images and noscript tags as something optional that a Web designer should add to a site for the crawlers and users browsing with graphics or JavaScript turned off. However, a recent lawsuit against Target by the National Federation of the Blind accuses the retailer of not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since Target's online store is unbrowsable with a screen reader, the nation's 200,000 blind people who go online cannot become paying customers, the NFB contends. From the article: 'In denying Target's motion to dismiss the suit two months ago, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel... held that the law's accessibility requirements applied to all services offered by a place of public accommodation. Since Target's physical stores are places of public accommodation, the ruling said, its online store must also be accessible or the company must offer equally effective alternatives.' Does the judge's name ring a bell? Yes, it's the same Marilyn Hall Patel who handled the RIAA's case against Napster in 2001."
Web builders and tools may need to start brushing up on the Web Accessibility Initiative.

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

IP logged posted posted 11-07-2006 05:10 Edit Quote

Yet another frivolous law suit that's ruining the United States. No corporation, or person for that matter, should be forced by law to change their policies to avoid inconveniencing a group. If Target chooses to alienate the 200,000 blind Americans who are shopping online, it should be their business.

Maruman
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: under your bed
Insane since: Oct 2000

IP logged posted posted 11-07-2006 06:28 Edit Quote

its not like blind people can see the products if they go into a store either is it? dunno what their complaining about.

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

IP logged posted posted 11-07-2006 08:23 Edit Quote
quote:
No corporation, or person for that matter, should be forced by law to change their policies to avoid inconveniencing a group.

So are you telling me we've made a mistake by making buildings and washrooms wheelchair accessible and that maybe we should go back to "White Entrance" and so on? And what was it 1970??? '72 at the latest the US gov't passed that pesky law that says husbands can no longer rape their wives with impunity. I'm just not quite clear what you mean.

___________________________________________________________________________
If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room.

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 16:15 Edit Quote

Being uncertain of what I meant, you felt the best approach was to label me a racist supporter of rape?

You must be one of those liberal intellectuals.

Blaise
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: London
Insane since: Jun 2003

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 16:21 Edit Quote

lol, nice reply Jestah,

But I think, although NoJive may have jumped the gun a bit, he has as point, it's as important that a website is made accessible as a public building is made accessible. There are more disabilities out there than lack of site you know, and it's not just lack of alt attributes that makes a site inaccessible.

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 16:45 Edit Quote

That's not quite the same thing though Blaise.

I don't question the importance of making public buildings handicap accessible. I question the importance of passing laws to force people and corporations to change their policies to avoid inconveniencing groups. If Target chooses to turn a blind eye to the important interest group that is blind Americans shopping for low end goods on their home computers, why should the US govt. intervene? Shouldn't Target have a right to decide who they'll cater to and who they won't? Where does it say in the Bill of Rights large retailers must go out of their way to make sure even the smallest groups are able to become paying customers?

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 17:20 Edit Quote

Anyone who's hung around here for any length of time knows quite well that I'm nothing near an intellectual. As far as being liberal... well who knows.

Regardless, my interpretation of

quote:
Shouldn't Target have a right to decide who they'll cater to and who they won't?

cannot be isolated to the 'on-line' world only.

So maybe I should rephrase my question.

If Target does not want to cater to blind people 'on-line'', why should target be forced by law to cater to blind people in its brick and mortar stores?

___________________________________________________________________________
If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room.

kimson
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Royal Horsing Ground
Insane since: Jan 2005

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 17:56 Edit Quote

This has nothing to do with human rights whatsoever; it is a choice, which is part of Target's business plan. You can call it inconsiderate or stupid, I would just let them get along with the few thousands customers they are loosing.


quote:

Blaise said:

There are more disabilities out there than lack of site you know, and it's not just lack of alt attributes that makes a site inaccessible.


Nice typo Blaise! Or is it a pun?

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 18:26 Edit Quote

Look... I'm just asking the question here... no big mystery. But it seems to me that if a business can successfully argue that it doesn't want to sell its goods to blind people on-line it can just as successfully argue that it doesn't want to sell it goods to blind people who enter its stores.

I mean how many times have you heard '..... business is business.'

So seriously... enlighten me... I don't get it. If I'm prepared to loose x many on-line customers why can't I loose as many in-store customers as I want.?

___________________________________________________________________________
If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room.

DL-44
Lunatic (VI) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 19:13 Edit Quote

Jestah, Kimson - the problem is this: once it can be decided that certain type os people cannot shop at Target, where then do we draw the line?

The point, I think, of Nojive's first ost was - who is to say that the attitude of 'blind people can't shop here' won't then turn into 'black people' or 'fat people' or 'poor people'....all of which, along with handicap people, are protected under US law.

The real question at hand is very simple, and is covered by the quote in the starting post of this thread:

quote:
...the law's accessibility requirements applied to all services offered by a place of public accommodation. Since Target's physical stores are places of public accommodation, the ruling said, its online store must also be accessible or the company must offer equally effective alternatives.



Whether or not the blind or any other handicap group need to be accomodated by a public business is not in question - it is established law and has been for a long time.

The *only* quesstion is: does the law include such things as internet storefronts of such a business?
If you feel it does not, why? What makes it diferent?

Given the section 508 rules governing the accessibility of such things websites used/made/offered/procured by the federal government, as well as just basic logic in assessing the corrolation of a website to the business it represents, it seems clear to me that it does in fact apply on the internet as much as it does on the street, and that the governing body who made the ADA into law feels the same.

(Edited by DL-44 on 11-08-2006 19:20)

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 20:28 Edit Quote

My point precisely DL. I could be wrong but I believe it falls under the category of 'unintended consequences.'

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Unintended_consequences



** Be sure to check out the link to 'Murphy's Law' ... always wondered where that originated.

___________________________________________________________________________
If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room.

Nemesis
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Uranus
Insane since: Aug 2003

IP logged posted posted 11-08-2006 20:51 Edit Quote
quote:

Petskull said:

Since Target's physical stores are places of public accommodation, the ruling said, its online store must also be accessible or the company must offer equally effective alternatives.'




Is it just me, or is not the physical store itself an equally effective alternative?

The medium by its nature is not very handicap friendly.... but neither is a whole slew of others that have never been challenged by law (that I am aware of).

When is the last time you saw a mail order catalogue come to your door with descriptive audio?

Its in Targets best interest to make their site as accessible as possible... no different than how you used to have to develop separate moron friendly sites for the dumb asses that insisted on using IE , but forcing someone to do so by law is a load of crap.

If they open that can of worms, where would it stop? Over 5 percent of the world suffers from dyslexia.... parc ho!

Jason

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

IP logged posted posted 11-09-2006 00:50 Edit Quote

Back to the beginning... of 'this thread.'

Prior to Petskull posting it here... I'd read that article earlier...not sure which site nor how much earlier but when Petskull posted up I'd already been think about this for a while and I wondered how it was going to play out here.

Now perhaps I could have picked my words a bit more carefully in responding to you Jestah, but perhaps and I say only 'maybe' your choice of phrasing could have been better.

"inconveniencing a group" That's what got me going. I t certainly wasn't my intent to suggest that YOU endorse raping wives with impunity or that you are a racist. My intent was to draw a correlation between a law that abolished slavery which certainly proved to be a rather great 'inconvenience' to slave owners ' a group' ... and that 'group' of husbands who found themselves 'inconvenienced' when they couldn't fuck their wives whenever unless the wife said... " why you ol' smooth talker you.' =)

DL puts it rather succinctly: The *only* question is: does the law include such things as internet storefronts of such a business?
If you feel it does not, why? What makes it diferent?

And it's the last part here that drives it home. WHAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT ???

___________________________________________________________________________
If you're not living life on the edge, you're taking up too much room.



Post Reply
 
Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options: Remember Me On This Computer
 
Your Text:
Loading...
Options: Show Signature
Enable Slimies
Enable Linkwords

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu