Comments on: Target sighted – a hit but not quite a bullseye http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Simon http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-7378 Simon Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:36:27 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/#comment-7378 Well it is the likes of Target.com that are at least facing the need for increased accessibility, but it seems the money hungry wining folk are after the $$$ to prove a point and make more cases following this one succeeding. But as mentioned it will make the others come into line and wake up to the current needs and standards. Well it is the likes of Target.com that are at least facing the need for increased accessibility, but it seems the money hungry wining folk are after the $$$ to prove a point and make more cases following this one succeeding. But as mentioned it will make the others come into line and wake up to the current needs and standards.

]]> By: pull to inflate » flight path » Out to Lunch says accessibilities in ‘no way possible’ http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-7368 pull to inflate » flight path » Out to Lunch says accessibilities in ‘no way possible’ Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:06:13 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/#comment-7368 [...] That’s a poor representation and far from the truth. No one is stopping you from learning braille - however, the current Target website doesn’t allow it’s users to access medication regardless of their attempts at learning a new method. Nevertheless, the subject of this lawsuit has been beat to death, and I grow weary of teaching to writers with quick tongues on subjects they know little about: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/02/07/target-sued-by-national-federation-of-the-blind/ http://www.webstandards.org/2006/02/09/taking-aim-at-targetcom/ http://www.webstandards.org/2006/02/10/staying-on-target/ http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/ [...] [...] That’s a poor representation and far from the truth. No one is stopping you from learning braille – however, the current Target website doesn’t allow it’s users to access medication regardless of their attempts at learning a new method. Nevertheless, the subject of this lawsuit has been beat to death, and I grow weary of teaching to writers with quick tongues on subjects they know little about: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/02/07/target-sued-by-national-federation-of-the-blind/ http://www.webstandards.org/2006/02/09/taking-aim-at-targetcom/ http://www.webstandards.org/2006/02/10/staying-on-target/ http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/ [...]

]]> By: Robert Wellock http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-6017 Robert Wellock Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:27:36 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/#comment-6017 It's good to know the case is still continuing and appears to be moving forward. It’s good to know the case is still continuing and appears to be moving forward.

]]> By: Matt Robin http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-5327 Matt Robin Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:07:08 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/#comment-5327 Ian: Extremely good awareness raised by you about the issues surrounding this particular case (again). 'Is illegal lack of adequate accessibility really getting enforced?' The outcome of the Target case will be an acid-test for the web-industry at large....or will it? Thanks to good articles like this one - there's some recognition of what such a case means for others - but awareness among the public in general is probably quite low. Have Target's sales been hit by the bad-press backlash caused by these charges? Maybe not (I'd like to see proof to suggest otherwise)...or...have they had to pay sufficiently high damages to the plaintiffs at any point? Again - no. What I'm trying to say is this: How much of the web, or companies and customers using the web, are critically aware of their resposibilities to provide accessible content and the consequences of not doing so? I'm sure the answer is disturbingly low. And if Target had to pay-up huge sums of cash tomorrow for their web-site failings (and readdress the inaccessibility of their site too) it would still get very little public awareness. People who need sites to be accessible CARE, people who care about accessible site design CARE....but 'Joe Public' who owns a company and wants his space on the Web is also one of the 30 Million+ users on MySpace right now who doesn't give a shit whether anyone else can't see what they see...or do what they do with their site. Ian - you're article is not just good...it's brilliant and timely! :) But when (if?) Target lose their day in court - I want the whole web to know and perhaps not just the Web Standards wing and Accessibility crowd. Is that a fair point to make? Ian: Extremely good awareness raised by you about the issues surrounding this particular case (again). ‘Is illegal lack of adequate accessibility really getting enforced?’ The outcome of the Target case will be an acid-test for the web-industry at large….or will it?
Thanks to good articles like this one – there’s some recognition of what such a case means for others – but awareness among the public in general is probably quite low. Have Target’s sales been hit by the bad-press backlash caused by these charges? Maybe not (I’d like to see proof to suggest otherwise)…or…have they had to pay sufficiently high damages to the plaintiffs at any point? Again – no. What I’m trying to say is this: How much of the web, or companies and customers using the web, are critically aware of their resposibilities to provide accessible content and the consequences of not doing so? I’m sure the answer is disturbingly low. And if Target had to pay-up huge sums of cash tomorrow for their web-site failings (and readdress the inaccessibility of their site too) it would still get very little public awareness. People who need sites to be accessible CARE, people who care about accessible site design CARE….but ‘Joe Public’ who owns a company and wants his space on the Web is also one of the 30 Million+ users on MySpace right now who doesn’t give a shit whether anyone else can’t see what they see…or do what they do with their site.

Ian – you’re article is not just good…it’s brilliant and timely! :)
But when (if?) Target lose their day in court – I want the whole web to know and perhaps not just the Web Standards wing and Accessibility crowd. Is that a fair point to make?

]]> By: Peter Hentges http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-5070 Peter Hentges Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:59:18 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/#comment-5070 I think one of the important aspects of this ruling is that it extends the case and, therefore, expands the legal costs Target needs to expend in order to defend itself. At some point the cost of making a site fully accessible will be less than the cost of defending against such lawsuits. When that tipping point is reached not having an accessible web site will become an economic liability. That's when we'll begin to see far more companies come into line. I think one of the important aspects of this ruling is that it extends the case and, therefore, expands the legal costs Target needs to expend in order to defend itself. At some point the cost of making a site fully accessible will be less than the cost of defending against such lawsuits. When that tipping point is reached not having an accessible web site will become an economic liability. That’s when we’ll begin to see far more companies come into line.

]]> By: lloydi http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-5017 lloydi Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:42:38 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/#comment-5017 Poo. I *always* spell your name wrong. A thousand apologies. Duly corrected ... until the next time I get it wrong (and then correct it again) Poo. I *always* spell your name wrong. A thousand apologies. Duly corrected … until the next time I get it wrong (and then correct it again)

]]> By: Joe Clark http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/comment-page-1/#comment-5008 Joe Clark Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:57:52 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/09/14/target-interim-ruling/#comment-5008 I expect you mean the case may have an <em>effect</em>. Also, there’s only one E in my name. I expect you mean the case may have an effect. Also, there’s only one E in my name.

]]>