Comments on: Blind User Sues Target Over Web Accessibility

By: Matt Heerema

Matt Heerema — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:01:19 +0000

Wow. Thanks for commenting Bruce.
Carlyle. Religious organizations are exempt from Title III.
However, that DOES NOT mean that we should act like we are. The reason Title III is a good thing is because it ensures that people with disabilities are able to access your information or product or service. Something I’m fairly certain your church wants to do.

By: Bruce Sexton Jr.

Bruce Sexton Jr. — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:26:24 +0000

bjsexton@comcast.net

By: Bruce Sexton Jr.

Bruce Sexton Jr. — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:20:56 +0000

Hi all,
I am the person you have all been debating about. I have heard some good arguments on both sides. I am sure that as intellegent people we will all begin to formulate our own opinions. My two cents worth is first of all I am able to use this site and it’s very accessible. Secondly I just want to be independent and educate anyone I can on how to make their business more accessible to all so that everyone can enjoy the products offered. Lastly, the organization I am working with and myself have a pretty comprehensive philosophy as to how we determine which fights to fight and which ones are going overboard. If you would like to e-mail me please feel free so long as we can talk it out like adults!

By: Carlyle

Carlyle — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:48:40 +0000

Yeah, that’s the thing I can’t easily dismiss (See Matt’s comment above). If Target is already required by ADA law to make their facilities physically accessible to physically handicapped persons, it seems a direct parallel that they would also be required to make their website – in this context a virtual and visual representation of their brand and services – accessible to visually handicapped persons.
It also seems the same argument would be applicable to churches (see RC’s comment above). My church is in the process of a move to a new facility, and as Director of Communications I’ve been directly involved in the process of generating signage for the new location. We don’t get to hold a single service there until we get our Certificate of Occupancy, and we don’t get that until we are 100% ADA compliant – accesible to all who would cross our threshold.
So is our website compliant? Not to my knowledge, and that’s something I’ll be looking into changing at my earliest opportunity.
Of course, I am not required to make my home ADA compliant, so am I therefore exempt from making my personal website accessible to the visually impaired? Where and how is the line actually drawn there, I wonder? Again, I’m probably aguing academics when I add personal websites into the mix, but still…

By: Matt Heerema

Matt Heerema — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:07:00 +0000

What gives him the right to demand this? Well, according to some, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This case (if not settled out of court) will set precedent on whether or not he, in fact, has the right to demand this.
It’s akin to having handicap accessilble bathroom, and wheelchair ramps. (i.e., these things all come from the same legislation)

By: Mark Pryor

Mark Pryor — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:45:13 +0000

I just don’t get what he thinks gives him the right to demand this. It is the store losing business, not him. Why doesn’t he just take his money and vote by buying somewhere else.

By: RC

RC — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:21:07 +0000

I can’t really see this applying to churches since they don’t market a good or a service for consumption.
That seems to be a critical part of the case…if churches begin offering services not available at a building, then maybe…but still, it’s different.
–RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com

By: Carlyle

Carlyle — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:10:46 +0000

Kevin -
You’re right – reading the linked article puts a bit of a different spin on the issue, and certainly increases my sympathy for Mr. Sexton’s position. I must admit after reading that article that I’m a little surprised Target would decline to make such positive changes to their site – if nothing else it is, truly, “just good business,” and seems to be a great PR opportunity to boot.
My unease remains, though, with the thought of a single private entity having the power to tell Target how to run their website, perhaps because in theory that means he has a right to tell me how to run mine as well – and you, yours. It’s the implications and possibilities that I can imagine precipitating from that kind of power that concern me.
Admittedly there’s a far cry between Target’s site and mine, in both purpose and content, so it’s quite likely I’ve got my nose against a tree, rather than looking at the forest. Were I running Target’s e-commerce division, I would have started investigations into expanding the useability of my site the moment I heard from Mr. Sexton, so in that respect, I suppose the point is moot.
I’ve run on long enough. Looking at it with my personal biases set aside, I think – if Target is wise – they will settle out of court and use the money they save to hire a good ‘full access’ web development team…

By: Matt Heerema

Matt Heerema — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:07:36 +0000

In order to clear up misconceptions and speculation we have posted an article over at Godbit about how current accessiblity legislation applies to the Web. There is currently a lot of guessword going on here. If you read the ADA Title III, it's difficult for me to see how the Internet would NOT fall under it. We're not lawyers, but it is possible to have a pretty good grasp of how the legislation affects the web. WebAIM is an invaluable resource for such things.

By: Kevin D. Hendricks

Kevin D. Hendricks — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:36:44 +0000

Carlyle, if you read the article you’ll notice that Saxton was in contact with Target and those discussions eventually broke down. That’s when the lawsuit came about.
So it’s not like he’s trying to get Target’s attention. He had that, they just didn’t agree to change. Rather he’s trying to draw attention to the whole issue and force Target to change.
I think Tally makes a good point that the accessibility laws probably won’t apply to a web site. But you can bet they apply to the physical Target stores.
As an interesting side note, I’m pretty sure most government agencies are required to ensure that any web sites they produce are accessible.