Posted on 10/05/2007 2:57:20 PM PDT by corbie
October 03, 2007 (Computerworld) A federal court judge has certified a class-action lawsuit against Target Corp. filed by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB).
Judge Marilyn Patel, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, certified the case as a class action on behalf of blind Internet users throughout the U.S. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to court documents. The class covered under the ruling includes people who tried without success to access Target.com and, as a result, have been denied access to "the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores," according to court documents.
The judge denied the retailer's request for summary judgment in the case.
"The court talks about the nexus between the ability to use the Web site and the ability to use the store in the physical space, so it's not all blind users who want to use Target.com and it isn't all blind users who went into Target stores," said Eric Goldman, assistant professor and director of the High Tech Law Institute at the Santa Clara University School of Law. "It's those users who used the Web site as part of going to the stores."
Goldman said it's unclear what other Web sites might be covered by the ruling.
"This doesn't mean that the ADA applies to all Web sites, but on the other hand, if there's a bricks-to-clicks type of business and there is some integration of the experience between the two, I think the court is saying that those sites need to comply with the ADA," he said.
The lawsuit was filed last year as a class action on behalf of all blind Americans denied access to target.com. The plaintiffs in the case -- the NFB, the NFB of California and blind college student Bruce "BJ" Sexton -- claimed that the retailer's Web site is inaccessible to the blind, in violation of federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities.
In September 2006, Patel ruled that the accessibility lawsuit against Target could proceed.
"This is a tremendous step forward for blind people throughout the country, who for too long have been denied equal access to the Internet economy," Marc Maurer, the President of the National Federation of the Blind, said in a statement. "All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind."
Larry Paradis, of Disability Rights Advocates, one of the lead counsels for the class, said the court's decision reinforces the view that people with disabilities can no longer be treated as second-class citizens.
Target officials could not be reached for comment.
I believe it involves including HTML and XML codes in the web site that can be interpreted by terminal (PC) modified for the blind (braille keyboard for output and input). Just guessing. But this smells like lawyering. Why Target? Why not E-Bay, or Sears, or Wal-Mart? How does this severely impact your life if Target is a less-than-blind-friendly business? Can’t they still go and get products elsewhere?
This is a clear conflict of interest. Everyone knows that Justice is blind....
This is a clear conflict of interest. Everyone knows that Justice is blind....
The website I operated at USPS (as an adjunct to our work) was fully accessible to the blind. It was also accessible to those who are color-blind. Other USPS sites were not always accessible to the colorblind, and having a serious color issue myself, I would spend my evenings, on my own time, tracking down USPS sites that didn't meet the standard and report them.
Nothing like putting yourself beyond criticism before you go on the warpath.
Anyway, the law hasn't changed since I retired, but I suspect the plaintiff's lawyers are trying to get a court to "interpret" the existing law so that it will include the handicapped.
There are a wide variety of software tools out there that make it possible for the blind to use the internet. When this first started, Microsoft didn't have the latest and greatest materials so we had to use a quite cumbersome method to create "tables" ~ I believe that's been correct through the development of new standards and the creation of software that "reads" the tables.
As far as Target's concerned, I wish them well. They should defend this to the max, and considering the fact that they've already fixed the problems, they should point out to the court that they are a leader in the field ~ which they are ~ since no one else outside the government has sought total access.
They can also note that a myriad of commercial and nonprofit NGOs DO NOT YET overcome the colorblindness problem and NO COURT has forced them to do so.
Judges sometimes hold up a tad when they come up against the fact they have the precedent making case, and they could come out of it looking like the fool he or she may be.
I say its 100% genuine BullSh**
Microsoft Narrator, a FREE PROGRAM, is a text–to–speech utility for people who are blind or have low vision. Narrator reads what is displayed on the screen—the contents of the active window, menu options, or text that has been typed.
Narrator is designed to work with Notepad, WordPad, Control Panel programs, Internet Explorer, the Windows desktop, and some parts of Windows Setup.
They don’t call it “Target” for no reason...
What’s that you say?
I didn’t think that seeing eye dogs could use a mouse.
It took long enough to teach the cat to flush the toilet.
Excuse the cyber-hiccup...
The handicapped associations in this country should sue the plaintiffs in this case for attempting to make money at the expense of an improved internet environment for blind and colorblind users WHICH CANNOT NOW BE FORESEEN.
I’m sure there are ways. I just don’t know why Target should be forced to do business with them. If Target overlooked making their site accessible to blind people, or even decided that they didn’t want to do business with them, that’s Target’s business. But the blind do have a remedy in the free market.
The best I can say is there are braille or text-to-voice readers for computers. However last I heard they were still pretty simple and worked for older versions of HTML but no so much for new fangled web2.0 type stuff.
I don't see how Target is at fault for this lack of technology.
I can’t see this.
Was this lawsuit against Target brought by the Salvation Army as revenge? I like the target of this lawsuit (pardon the pun), because Target was a jerk to the bellringers at Christmas, but the premise of the lawsuit is ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.