CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Target (amongst others) hates blind people!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Target (amongst others) hates blind people!

post #1 of 16
10/25/06 at 4:28pm
Thread Starter 
I find this whole thing really interesting, as it could lead to a healthy debate about civil rights. Then again, it could lead to about five blind jokes and a buried thread. Either way...

ARTICLE IS HERE

Highlights:
Quote:
NEW YORK - "Links list dialogue." "Links list view." "Your Account — Two of 164." This is what the Internet sounds like to Chris Danielsen. Danielsen is blind. He's using a software program called Jaws that converts the text on a Web page into a computerized voice that comes out through a speaker, allowing him to surf the Web using keyboard commands instead of a mouse — the same way lots of blind people use the Internet.
Quote:
But like any evolving technology, accessing the Internet has hardly been a smooth ride for the blind. Some sites can be difficult to navigate, particularly if they contain relatively few text links and rely more on graphics and other visual elements that screen-reading software such as Jaws can't interpret.

That's why the NFB, an organization that represents blind people, is suing Target Corp., saying that its Web site is inaccessible to blind Internet users.
Quote:
Target said in a statement that its Web site was "committed to providing an online experience that is accessible to all of our guests. Despite the lawsuit brought forward by the National Federation of the Blind, we have always and will continue to implement new technologies to our Web site."

John Pare, a spokesman for the NFB, said most Web sites are far easier to navigate than Target's. In a demonstration of screen-reading software for The Associated Press, Danielsen showed that many links on Target's side were unintelligible to the Jaws software, and that the final purchase required the use of a mouse, something even the most sophisticated blind Web surfer would have trouble with. However, he was able to navigate other sites and purchased a CD from Amazon.
Reply
post #2 of 16
10/25/06 at 4:45pm
It's a monumental task for the "Jaws" software that interprets these pages, as there is no requirement to make web navigation process solely through anchor tags. They can be executed via javascript event handlers that can call custom client/server routines, and Macromedia's Flash has no way of being screened by third party software, despite being able to execute navigation as well.

I don't think there's a provision in the "Americans with Disabilities" act for companies to make their web sites blind accessible, let alone third party software compatible. It might be nice to have sites specific geared for the blind, but that lawsuit really has no basis.
Reply
post #3 of 16
10/25/06 at 4:47pm
Alright, let's get those jokes out of the way. Off the top of my head:

-Target's just holding out for compatibility on the next version of the program, Jaws 3-D.

-"He's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes."

I know most of you guys could do better than that, help me out here
Reply
post #4 of 16
10/25/06 at 4:51pm
Everyone knows the internet is for porn so why do blind people use it if the Jaws program can't describe images? I'm sure even blind people don't want to troll shitty sex blogs.
Reply
post #5 of 16
10/25/06 at 5:06pm
Can't their dogs buy them stuff online?
Reply
post #6 of 16
10/25/06 at 5:26pm
Accessibility is always a problem for blind or deaf users (all though usually it's more of a problem for the blind). The question is how much do you legally have to do to make your site accessible.

Sure it's GOOD to do that, and lots of sites do it, but is it legally required?

This lawsuit would seem to allege that it is and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I know that as a part time web developer (mostly for friends and relatives) I have a hard enough time getting the page to look the way I want it to on a web site, never mind trying to get it to be correctly handled by a screen reader.

Still, advances in CSS and hierarchical layouts are making the possibility of descriptive HTML tags a much easier proposition (by separating the content layer from the presentation layer).
Reply
post #7 of 16
10/25/06 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
I don't think there's a provision in the "Americans with Disabilities" act for companies to make their web sites blind accessible, let alone third party software compatible. It might be nice to have sites specific geared for the blind, but that lawsuit really has no basis.
Section 508 does roughly that, except that it states that Federal agencies are required to make any information available on their website available to all. Target isn't a federal agency, you say. True, however, the government is prohibited from dealing with any company that does not meet the same standards on their own sites. (Read: Target can't sell to the US Gov't. if they lose this suit. Thus, they have a stake in making this go away) The suit is a little flimsy, true, but it could potentially stick if the plaintiff knows their stuff.

(Credentials - I did a year of 508 compliance for a conglomerate of banks... Not retail, admittedly, but it's somewhat related)
Reply
post #8 of 16
10/25/06 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Wehman
He's using a software program called Jaws that converts the text on a Web page into a computerized voice that comes out through a speaker
Good to see Richard Kiel is getting work.
Reply
post #9 of 16
10/25/06 at 6:04pm
If Target changes their web-site content to be more text-centric then they'll be sued by the illiterates. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Reply
post #10 of 16
10/25/06 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Man Mundt
If Target changes their web-site content to be more text-centric then they'll be sued by the illiterates. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The point is that this information is already in the database so it's not THAT difficult to get the product name in the alt text that is with the image or to make the buttons actually be buttons.

Instead it's a convoluted series of poorly labeled images and next buttons that make it nearly impossible for a screen reader to handle.

The funny thing is that Amazon used to handle Target's website but Target eventually decided to run it's own and now people are saying, "Why isn't it as good as Amazon's?"
Reply
post #11 of 16
10/25/06 at 9:07pm
That was a joke, bro.
Reply
post #12 of 16
10/25/06 at 11:57pm
Get a trained monkey. As long as it's not one of those homicidal ones, you'll be okay.
Reply
post #13 of 16
10/26/06 at 12:05am
My problem is that this is just another in a long line of incidents in which the blind are trying to horn in on all our cool sighted fun. The blind should be more like the deaf. You never hear the deaf harping about stuff like this. Mums the word with the deaf.
Reply
post #14 of 16
10/26/06 at 12:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
Can't their dogs buy them stuff online?
You callous son of a bitch, there's a blind guy hearing this thread right now whose heart is breaking!
Reply
post #15 of 16
10/26/06 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Sweeney
Section 508 does roughly that, except that it states that Federal agencies are required to make any information available on their website available to all. Target isn't a federal agency, you say. True, however, the government is prohibited from dealing with any company that does not meet the same standards on their own sites. (Read: Target can't sell to the US Gov't. if they lose this suit. Thus, they have a stake in making this go away) The suit is a little flimsy, true, but it could potentially stick if the plaintiff knows their stuff.

(Credentials - I did a year of 508 compliance for a conglomerate of banks... Not retail, admittedly, but it's somewhat related)
Fair enough, although that's an extremely broad/vague statement in "Available to all" and that's only to do business with the U.S. Government. And while the official U.S. Gov web site is available in multiple languages, it doesn't cover them all (I didn't see Mandarin or Swahili), and language translation alone makes it difficult for all retailors to comply. I could see major retailors wanting to make simplistic blind-only interfaces to expand their market, but until a far more detailed compliance law comes into effect, I don't see much ground for a lawsuit.
Reply
post #16 of 16
10/26/06 at 12:03pm
Thread Starter 
Wow - this thread became both.

Sweeny and Surge are carrying on this deep discussion about the rights of the disabled and the governments role in that, and others say their dogs should do it!

Yeah, internet!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Target (amongst others) hates blind people!