Target stores agreed to a $6 million settlement because its website was not suitably accessible for the blind, accoording to an article in the Wall Street Journal today. I don't know much about the screen reading software mentioned, but I'd have to agree with Target that I thought the Americans with Disabilities Act referred only to physical buildings.
Have any of you considered whether your site complies with the Disabilities Act? How accessible is your site to the blind? I have to admit I've never considered whether the blind could access my website and my blogs.
Sharon,
I guess a consumer complained and they don't want to cause a ruckus. That's a lot of money!
Neal - I think if we had a loser pays all legal system we wouldn't have as many spurious lawsuits hoping that the defendant will settle rather than spend the time and legal fees to defend themselves.
I am sure they settled to limit negative press. I just wonder what it would take to make a website more accessible.
Sharon, good grief! I had no idea that ADA applied to web sites. I know there has been a lot of progress with software people can buy to help them through the Internet with various disabilities. If I had been Target, I might have fought this one.
Sharon, I tag my photos with alt tags so they can know what the photo is about. Interesting, thanks for giving us a heads up.
Morning Sharon,
Just goes to show you that there is an on going learning experience all thru our lives. I had no idea the ADA was so emcompassing. Thanks for sharing.
There are so many things to do to comply with EVERYTHING! I'm very surprised that Target or for that matter any person or company could lose a lawsuit on Internet Accessibility.
Very interesting. Not sure what a web site needs to do to be accessible to blind people, but wonder how putting alt tags helps.
Well, here is an answer to the question I just asked about web accessiblity guidelines.
http://trace.wisc.edu/world/web/index.html#awsgI
I now realize that use of alt tags on pictures allows people who have limited sight to increase the font size so they can see it. I had mistakenly thought that this was referring to people with no sight at all.
Sounds like the same attorney that had the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. Crazy stuff. I think $6 million is way too excessive!
Sharon - Congratulations on your 400k plus, I found your name on another persons post.
This is a common concern of professional web developers. Taking into account every possible user is key to the strong development of any marketing effort including the web.
Making websites accessible to people who use it in non-traditional methods isn't that hard. If you have a standards compliant (google: wc3) website then you're defiantly on the right track.
Removing flash components and ensuring that your images all have ALT tags is a great place to start to ensure that people using screen readers and the like can find value in your online marketing effort.
Randy - maybe, but I think it's still about all the hassle and expense involved in the defense - especially if they won at the first level, then had appeals, etc.
Pat - sometimes it's priciple vs. practicality. Hopefully a settlement doesn't become precedent.
Missy - I thought the ALT tags were just for search engines - didn't know they helped in other ways.
Hal - just when we thought we knew what the laws meant....
Mott - they didn't lose the case, they settled.
Colleen - I hadn't considered those with slight sight, only those that were totally blind.
Debbie - I still think that if the loser had to pay for the defendant's lawyers and costs, we'd have less crazy suits.
Robert - thanks! I've been blogging for quite a while.
Rob - while we should definitely make efforts to accomodate everyone, it doesn't make sense to me to remove flash or other elements that would improve the experience for the majority.
Sharon - Thanks for this update, what does this mean for other industries? I suppose we will all need some guidlines, I too was under the impression the law applied to a physical location.
Wow, Sharon, This is beyond anything I have ever known about. I suppose I will need to check this out. What next?
>> Rob - while we should definitely make efforts to accommodate everyone, it doesn't make sense to >> me to remove flash or other elements that would improve the experience for the majority.
Don't get me wrong, flash is a great tool. However, not only does it have a negative effect on the ability of search engines to read your content, but it has a negative effect on the variety of different ways that the web can be read by humans too.
It is easier for a search engine or screen reader to interpret a photo gallery of your homes that has been programmed in javascript rather then flash. The photo gallery could look almost identical, but to screen readers, mobile phones, search engines, etc your web site will be accessible.
Flash isn't really the problem though, it's a way of thinking about making your websites accessible that makes a difference. Ensuring that your web developer creates standards compliant (google: wc3) pages is a great start.