Scary Views on WAI

at 01:33 on 13 February 2006, Ed Hall wrote:

Some of those comments are sad and disturbing. The guy had no choice in being blind, and now it's his fault that a website as big as Target couldn't apply to standards the nerve. This is sad I hope other big sites follow suit.

at 04:51 on 13 February 2006, David B. wrote:

I read the entire thing, and i have to say this is sad. and not sad for the blind guy, i mean i totally understand civil rights and liberties, but this smacks of taking advantage of a situation.

yeah yeah you all can tar and feather me later. but target has been arround for what 8 to 10 years now and this lawsuit just now coming up, when 'standards' are all the rave just doesnt sit well with me.

you are right, the guy cant help that he was born blind but he can also be taken to the actual store and make a purchase there, now if he gets stopped by the door and turned arround becaue someone says they cant help a blind person well then he has a suit.

this isnt like a government website that has documents in washington that i have to get and i cant very well walk to washington. but this is not and should not be a huge issue. I think whats going on here is a push by some to bring legality into the piture to force standards on business. which wont work in the long run because the

at 04:58 on 13 February 2006, David B. wrote:

government is not set up or equiped and should not be the governance of the web domain. its is sad because it seems that companies are taking it upon them selves after the first lawsuit was filed this is just going to put a bitter taste in themouth of an industry THAT WAS VOLUNTARILY CHANGING.

target having an onlione presents is an ADDED bonus not a 'right'. someone saidinthe comments, 'Well the US is a culture of lawsuits...don't see a ramp? Sue the school. See bibles on the teacher's desk at school? Sue the district..'

and i think they are right, these lawsuits are getting ridiculous. and they dont effect the kind of change that needs to happen. You want to see Target accessible? then petition your legislators to pass laws to that effect( which i persoanlly dont agrrewith, but do what you must). but filing an obviously "attention grabbing, high profile" lawsuit for this is kinda ridiculous. there are WAY more important things going on right now in the world that the c

at 05:01 on 13 February 2006, David B. wrote:

courts need to be handling right now. again I am an advocate for civil rights, but not the perversion of those rights. and this just feelslike a cheap stunt. i would not be surprised if it comes out that there is some bigger organization that has just put this guy out as the poster child. I wondder if this guy really has a problem with not being able to shop at target or is this simply feeding into someones agenda?

at 05:25 on 13 February 2006, Ed Hall wrote:

I see your point, but one must wonder who makes these cases "high profile." I think it's all the hooplah of folks like ourselves and those over on digg.com that really make it high profile. Big corporations get sued for something everyday but most of those cases don't get high profile until people hear of it and make a uproar. And who really wins in the big picture? It's sad cause no one is really looking out for the little guy. And when the little guy tries to lash back he gets stepped on as if he really didn't have the right to lash out. I thought the caste system was done away with a few centuries ago. Not to rant but the issue isn't about a blindguy suing target, it's about Equal Rights for those who otherwise couldn't have them. Yeah there is a bigger agenda. I'm for equal rights it's no picnic to be handicapped, but most people can't relate cause they've never been handicapped. It's a challenge to do what everyone else calls normal or simple. It's not's so simple

at 06:03 on 13 February 2006, David B. wrote:

and hey i totally agree with you and yes i can relate to the handicapped, and yes i want to see the little guy win out, but this isnt the case for the little guy. I WANT to see big corporates get thier acts together. but shopping online isnt a civil right. you where not born with the right to browse the internet, hell most of use where born before the internet had legs.

I dont want to come across as someone who is heartless or non understanding, i beleive its because i do understand that this just doesnt have teeth for 'me'. i mean better to sue the government web sites thattruly fall into the "equal rights" usage senerio. how many state run governmental bodies doen liveup to the 508?

I think the private sector is trying, look at all the 'big corp' that are changing on thereown. i just dont think we should get into the goverment requiring us to make these moves. vote with your feet, dont like it organize a boycott, you'd get much bigger pub, much bigger support.

at 14:13 on 13 February 2006, David wrote:

This may just make the world take web standards seriously. If the guy wins every major company will be scrambling to make their site accessible.

More work for us!

at 15:48 on 13 February 2006, Jason S wrote:

Hahahaha! This is one of those ignorant lawsuits that has no standing whatsoever. Hope the guy has fun paying for it.

Target is not required to make their website accessible to the blind.

Sure, its questionable that they don't and perhaps they are losing out on customers because of it, but theres no requirement by law for any company to be required to cater to the requirements of any consumer, especially on the web.

Civil rights violation? Mmmmkk. Dream on @hole.

The only grounds they would have to sue here, is if Target turned them away based on their disability. Which isn't the case.

at 16:27 on 13 February 2006, David B. wrote:

Actually Jason the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) does have this as a provision or there would really be no lawsuit.

"More work for us!" --> ;)

at 18:04 on 13 February 2006, Ed Hall wrote:

Yeah there are provisions for the Disabled.. commonly called Accesilbility Laws other wise there wouldn't be a lawsuite. Before you speak on such terms you should do some research.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/USA-States.html

at 18:06 on 13 February 2006, Ed Hall wrote:

I just hope the court settles that Target just upgrade their site. I don't think they should get sued for money, cause the guy really didn't loose anything over not "seeing" the site.

at 00:38 on 14 February 2006, Greg wrote:

This is so stupid. It's like that lawsuit against McDonald's from two fat girls who claimed they were unaware that eating McDonald's all the time would make them fat... Come on, don't kid yourself.

Why doesn't he just sue Texas Instruments for making calculators that blind people can't use? Oh, I got a better one; why doesn't he just sue GM for not making cars that are usable by blind people?! Get real and stop trying to milk money out of big companies for stupid reasons.

at 01:23 on 14 February 2006, Luke Redpath wrote:

Maybe some of the people here would change their tune if they suffered from a severe disability and people were actively discriminating against them.

at 05:12 on 14 February 2006, David B. wrote:

Luke i understand your comments, and i hope this doesnt open another can of worms. but go here => thoughts.climaxdesigns.com take a look at my picture, i know a little about "actively discriminating". not a whole lot ( and yes i do understand that simply by me being, does not automatically grant any such knowledge, but let me make it clearer, i live in the deep south, it's very pervasive if not open), but enough to empathize in general, just not with this specific one.

"Before you speak on such terms you should do some research"

yeeaapp!

at 15:02 on 14 February 2006, Patrick wrote:

Personally I'm surprised that it has taken this long for someone to bring a suit against a big company for breaking the accessibility laws.

Unfortunately I can't remember the source of my information but it's my understanding that Target were approached over a year ago about their site not being accessible to people with disabilities but rather than being pro-active and working to rectify the situation they ignored it and now it's come back to bite them on the arse.

Most of the changes that are required to make a website are relatively minor, providing alt-text and alternatives to image maps shouldn't cause anyone any problems, that they haven't is just laziness.

Whilst some of you may think that being forced to ensure that your website is accessible think of how it affects bricks and mortar businesses who have to perform structural changes to their premises to provide wider doors, access ramps, toilet facilities etc? Adding a few extra tags isn't that much of an issue

at 17:00 on 14 February 2006, Ross wrote:

Similar concept is if Target has 12 steps to get into their doors and no wheelchair ramp or elevator I guess the guy in the wheelchair should just find another place to shop?

No, they should create a wheelchair ramp and make the store accessible for him to get in and get out and buy what he wants.

at 05:39 on 16 February 2006, Shawn Dryden wrote:

Target is a public company and can not discriminate. It is the same reason they have ramps and handicapped parking.

Most blind people can not go to a store by themselves. To say that someone can take them to a store is insulting. They want to be independent just as much as me and you. The internet is possibly one of the greatest things to happen to blind people. They can buy things at home and have them delivered, get information without leaving home or finding a brail book.

All Target had to do is add some alt tags and remove images maps, hell how many years has it been since anyone used an image map.

at 13:17 on 18 June 2008, zeka oyunları wrote:

-Thanks for this good blog text.3

=

at 09:41 on 19 June 2008, bedava oyunlar wrote:

52very nice, thanks

at 13:39 on 19 June 2008, 2 kişilik oyunlar wrote:

€very goods_--_-

at 10:13 on 24 June 2008, oyun wrote:

Thanks, for this good blog tex.

()

at 14:47 on 26 June 2008, oyunlar wrote:

nice, -very goods!-*-/-/

at 10:42 on 30 June 2008, oyunlar wrote:

_thanks_ea

Add a comment:

Keep the comment relevant, constructive and be polite.
A valid email address or URL to your site must be provided, or the comment might get deleted. Content seemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted. Avoid explicit language and words such as "sucks" and "ripoff". For more in-depth discussions use our forum. Email addresses are never displayed. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted - no need to use <p> or <br/>. Quotes & apostrophes are automatically converted to smart punctuation. Be careful when copying and pasting portions of entries or other comments. The following inline HTML elements may be used: <strong><em><pre><q><blockquote><code>. All other code will get removed before posting. Don't forget to close your tags.