On Handicapped Access, Target’s Fighting The Wrong Fight For The Wrong Reason
Written by Evan SchumanWhen a federal judge in California agreed that a lawsuit from the National Federation for the Blind can proceed against Target, E-Commerce executives should have breathed a collective sigh of relief.
The lawsuit essentially argues that Target's online operation violated the American with Disabilities Act because it is not designed to easily accessible to blind users. Target's defense has been that the ADA does not explicitly talk about Web sites so, Target reasons, it's not covered. That argument is wrong for so many reasons. For the moment, let's set aside that the argument is wrong legally (the California judge already dealt with that one). From Target's perspective, it's more relevant that the answer is wrong from a marketing, customer service and an IT and design perspective.
This Story Is Only Available For Premium Subscribers. Click Or Login In Below To Read The Rest Of This Story.
5 Comments | Read On Handicapped Access, Target’s Fighting The Wrong Fight For The Wrong Reason
Leave a Reply
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.
-Christine
September 25th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
This really isn’t a strategy issue, or accessibility issue. It is a single special interest group suing a major retailer because it CAN. The vision impaired don’t have the same accessibility to billboards along the highway, most certainly not the “new” style that are essentially huge and annoying TVs. They also, for the most part aren’t able to physically DRIVE to stores, where they could equally miss out on huge and colorful displays, sale signs, and aisle markers. Sure, there are supposed to be (or mandated) brail aisle identifiers, but if someone actually needed them they are certainly not as accessible as signs that can be seen from many aisles away. It would be far more practical to have another site beyond the main site dedicated to the visually impaired, but then that would be considered discrimination as well. Oddly enough, everyone in the world is NOT blind or visually impaired (hence the concept behind the term). It makes NO sense at all to force everyone else into a little visually impaired box of limited color, visual display and interaction. Some people like animated sites full of cheesy flash animations, or they simply would not exist! Online shopping for most anything beyond downloadable music is a VISUAL experience, by nature and DESIGN, the internet is a visual animal. A picture is said to be worth a thousand words, so how exactly does the author and proponents of this suit expect Target or any other online e-tailer to EXPLAIN every picture of every item in their ever-changing inventory? Explaining texture, feel, fit, drape is fine initially, but just like color and fashion they are subjective to consumers. One thing right in this article is this is just a bunch of people making attorneys richer. The end result will be no better for the visually impaired, but probably a lot worse for the sighted. Welcome to the wonderful world of political correctness…
September 26th, 2006 at 8:21 am
It seems to me that Tony is living in a world of, say, 80 years ago. It’s true that “The vision impaired don’t have the same accessibility to billboards along the highwayâ€. And the hearing impaired don’t have the same access to cell phone noise in the airport. Think of all the steps folks in wheel chairs don’t have access to. But most of us believe that it is a civil right, in fact it is civil decency, to do what we can to build accessibility into the picture as a normal part of doing business. That is what the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passed in 1990 guarantees – access to the world of business and entertainment for people with disabilities.
Even though the National Federation of the Blind focuses on the issues it knows best, the suit relates to all people with disabilities. One of the most damning access failures on the Target website was that it was impossible to complete a purchase without using a mouse – using only the keyboard. Folks with even minor mobility impairments as well as blind visitors were shut out of shopping on Target.com. (This problem has now been fixed.)
The issue is not whether people with disabilities have a right to expect accommodation, but whether that right guaranteed by the ADA, extends to the WEB. That was the issue decided by Judge Patel on September 6, 2006 when she allowed the suit to move forward.
Providing accessible web sites, as Evan Schuman says, does not mean dumbing down design. The Target web site could be made accessible without changing a single pixel of the visual display. It would be better for Target to take on a significant redesign, as Evan suggests, into a lighter faster CSS based out that would entice more customers and function on more devices. But such forward looking design is not a requirement of accessibility – for the blind or for any disability.
September 29th, 2006 at 5:54 am
The ADA never just meant physical disabilities it also included visual
audio and mental disabilities in the original and passed law. For Target
to assume the law doesn’t apply to its web page is wrong not only
because tha law doesn’t mention the web at all but also because the web
page is interstate commerce and the ADA definately applies
Robert Schoenfeld
Rapid Telecomm
October 19th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
The ADA “issue” is ridiculous! I feel bad for those who are handicapped, but to impose the costs of equipping our nation for the small percentage of the population that is handicapped has become unreasonable. For example, a movie theater must not only provide seating for the handicapped, but must provide seating that is “equivalent” to that of seating for non-handicapped individuals. This requires elevators, mezzanines, and numerous ramps. For a stadium seating theater this represents almost 4% of the cost of a new facility while handicapped patrons represent less than .02% of the total patrons a theater will see in a year. There must be a reasonableness criteria for any such equivalency requirement! It is one thing to provide access and another to provide the parity that is being required!
The requirement as to whether this or any accommodation should be required should be based on the relative benefit. Although we would like to think everything should be accessible, it is just too expensive, and the cost would likely go to waste. My perception, and likely the perception of most of your readers, is that a very small percentage of those who are visually impaired actually surf the web, let alone shop on the web. If I am wrong, I would like to see evidence of this usage (something other than anecdotal evidence). This is a waist of valuable resources. This lunacy should not continue!!!!
October 20th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
What I believe is funny about this article is the fact it bashes Target and specifically mentions alt-text. Yet storefrontbacktalk.com where the article is posted doesn’t use alt-text nor does the authors own eweek.com. Go to eWeek.com and see the tabs at the top of the web site. They use a no-no for accessibility…images for text, and then to top it all off the site doesn’t include alt-text for those images which allow site navigation.