The Internet vs. The Blind

[Alareth]

A California Federal Judge has ceritfied a class action lawsuit against Target on the grounds that Target's website is not accessable by the blind and therefore violates laws to prevent discrimination against the handicapped.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...net+NewsNews-3

[tkingdoll]

Well, if their site is not accessible to the blind, then huzzah for the judge.

If, however, it is (as Target claims), then this was unfair.

But it's really not difficult (although it is more expensive) to have an e-commerce site which the blind can use. Large retailers really need to have a clue by now.

But look how many lawsuits it took before they put wheelchair ramps in. They aren't going to spend the money until they need to.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Well, if their site is not accessible to the blind, then huzzah for the judge.

If, however, it is (as Target claims), then this was unfair.

But it's really not difficult (although it is more expensive) to have an e-commerce site which the blind can use. Large retailers really need to have a clue by now.

But look how many lawsuits it took before they put wheelchair ramps in. They aren't going to spend the money until they need to.

It's not one of these subjective things you know. You can figure out fairly easily if they broke the law.

[Alareth]

They also have to deal with the precedent set by another Federal Judge stating that the ADA only applies to physical spaces and not the internet.

[slingblade]

I'm not being facetious, honest. But if a website must be accessible to the blind, does Publisher's Clearing House have to identify all the blind folks on their mailing list, and send them "You May Already Be A Millionaire!" letters in braille?

It was just something that occurred to me. I don't mean to be rude.

[madurobob]

I'm confused. How do you make a website accessible to the blind? Do you have to embed sound files or run voice software on your server that reads each page based on mouse position? Wouldn't it make more sense, in terms of bandwidth use, for that software to run on the user's PC?

If so, I think the suit should be against Microsoft for not providing the software? Oh wait, they already do. This should be a fun lawsuit to watch develop.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

But it's really not difficult (although it is more expensive) to have an e-commerce site which the blind can use. Large retailers really need to have a clue by now.

You'd think so, but unfortunately, the majority of web developers out there shouldn't be in business in the first place. There's a shortage of skill, so every cowboy out there calls himself a web developer these days and attempts to make websites without the first clue about best practices.

Out of curiosity, I checked Target's homepage with the W3C markup validation. It failed validation. Then I checked this forum. It failed too. I checked the randi.org homepage. Failed.

You can't expect someone who falls at the first stumbling block to implement accessibility standards properly. And apparently, most developers can't code valid XHTML.

[rjh01]

Nick. What you wrote looks very interesting. However can you write it again for people who do not understand what you are talking about, like me?

This means
What is W3C markup validation?
How it is relevant.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Originally Posted by rjh01

This means
What is W3C markup validation?
How it is relevant.

Hi,

Sorry if I was being cryptic, I had a major rant mode going on. The W3C is the World Wide Web Consortium, which sets standards and publishes guidelines for making web pages. They have an automated validation service available at http://validator.w3.org/ which web developers can use to ensure that their HTML and CSS code respect at least a specific subset of those standards. Quoting from their FAQ:

Quote:

What is Markup Validation?

Most pages on the World Wide Web are written in computer languages (such as HTML) that allow Web authors to structure text, add multimedia content, and specify what appearance, or style, the result should have.
As for every language, these have their own grammar, vocabulary and syntax, and every document written with these computer languages are supposed to follow these rules. The (X)HTML languages, for all versions up to XHTML 1.1, are using machine-readable grammars called DTDs, a mechanism inherited from SGML.
However, Just as texts in a natural language can include spelling or grammar errors, documents using Markup languages may (for various reasons) not be following these rules. The process of verifying whether a document actually follows the rules for the language(s) it uses is called validation, and the tool used for that is a validator. A document that passes this process with success is called valid.
With these concepts in mind, we can define "markup validation" as the process of checking a Web document against the grammar (generally a DTD) it claims to be using.

A web developer--a proper one--should make sure he follows the standards Unfortunately, the vast majority of them don't. Because they are rubbish and lazy but there's enough money around to keep them in business. This ties in with the OP, because among the guidelines published by the W3C are accessibility guidelines for the disabled, in particular for making web sites that can be easily rendered by speech synthetisers, Braille displays or other assistive technologies. A developer who ignores even the simplest guidelines, as the one who did Target's homepage, is very unlikely to have spent any effort on making the website accessible.

As Teek pointed out, it shouldn't be beyond a company the size of Target to hire a decent web development agency, but they probably wanted to do it on the cheap, and got what they paid for: a shoddy website.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by madurobob

I'm confused. How do you make a website accessible to the blind? Do you have to embed sound files or run voice software on your server that reads each page based on mouse position? Wouldn't it make more sense, in terms of bandwidth use, for that software to run on the user's PC?

I think the issue could be due to people using things like Flash animations and/or Java Applets in their web design.

There are speech synthesizers that can take things like HTML and vocalize what is seen. (There can still be problems with people using invalid HTML, as another poster suggested, or perhaps not using proper tags for images.) But those synthesizers may not be able to handle links appearing in flash animations, or in applets. (Not sure what the current state of technology is though.)

[H3LL]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Well, if their site is not accessible to the blind, then huzzah for the judge.

Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts

A web developer--a proper one--should make sure he follows the standards Unfortunately, the vast majority of them don't. Because they are rubbish and lazy but there's enough money around to keep them in business. This ties in with the OP, because among the guidelines published by the W3C are accessibility guidelines for the disabled, in particular for making web sites that can be easily rendered by speech synthetisers, Braille displays or other assistive technologies. A developer who ignores even the simplest guidelines, as the one who did Target's homepage, is very unlikely to have spent any effort on making the website accessible.

As Teek pointed out, it shouldn't be beyond a company the size of Target to hire a decent web development agency, but they probably wanted to do it on the cheap, and got what they paid for: a shoddy website.

One of my first arguments on this site was with Claus on disabled access to web sites. It was my baptism of fire against the mighty Claus on a subject I felt strongly about but not skilled in Claus-ing nor a developer myself.

I have since commented on the subject a few times since but must say I felt like a rather feeble fart in a hurricane.

With luck, we should hear the tired old arguments voiced here again.

Teek sums it up nicely. So nicely I think I will quote it again:

"Well, if their site is not accessible to the blind, then huzzah for the judge."

I'll leave you experts to it now I've had my tuppence worth.

Carry one.

ETA: It is interesting in its own right as well as a good source for developers to see how real people cope with real issues about web access when blind or partially sighted and what can be/is being done:

Royal National Institute of Blind People

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by madurobob

I'm confused. How do you make a website accessible to the blind? Do you have to embed sound files or run voice software on your server that reads each page based on mouse position? Wouldn't it make more sense, in terms of bandwidth use, for that software to run on the user's PC?

Website-accessibility for the blind is done by ensuring that the page can be easily read and navigated by text-recognition-&-reading-speaking programs, used by the Blind or sight-impaired to navigate the text pages of the Web.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Website-accessibility for the blind is done by ensuring that the page can be easily read and navigated by text-recognition-&-reading-speaking programs, used by the Blind or sight-impaired to navigate the text pages of the Web.

[speculation]
I think the best way to go about this would be to have a different version of the page, just simple text for this purpose. Same name as the html file, but call it a bhtml for example. A simple browser add-on would automatically take blind users to the accessible bhtml page.
[/speculation]

Maybe something like this is already done?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts

...snip...

Out of curiosity, I checked Target's homepage with the W3C markup validation. It failed validation. Then I checked this forum. It failed too. I checked the randi.org homepage. Failed.

...snip...

Damn that's reminded me - not checked since we moved to 3.6.8... well there is one that is an obvious quick fix!

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by WildCat

[speculation]
I think the best way to go about this would be to have a different version of the page, just simple text for this purpose. Same name as the html file, but call it a bhtml for example. A simple browser add-on would automatically take blind users to the accessible bhtml page.
[/speculation]

Maybe something like this is already done?

Only problem with that answer is that if you don't do it carefully enough, Google may suddenly decide that they don't like your web-site, because of what they may see as key-word spamming by the web-site, and so they would punatively bump your web-site down the Results page for searches.

[geni]

Originally Posted by WildCat

[speculation]
I think the best way to go about this would be to have a different version of the page, just simple text for this purpose. Same name as the html file, but call it a bhtml for example. A simple browser add-on would automatically take blind users to the accessible bhtml page.
[/speculation]

Maybe something like this is already done?

I think I've seen it done however in many cases makeing sure that your main site works okey with screen reader software has other advantages.

[tkingdoll]

One of the reasons websites aren't accessible to the blind is because the client prefers style over function. As already mentioned, Flash content instead of HTML, or even simple things like copy writing (for example, link readers require a hyperlink to be a description of the thing the link goes to, for example "click here to download our brochure" as the whole link rather than just the "click here" part. A website full of "click here"s tells a link reader user nothing at all but a trendy client might want it that way for style).

And for many, many sites, I think it's absolutely fine. For example, some of my clients are publishers. They might want a microsite for a niche market book - if there are no plans for the book to be released in audio then it's safe to say the client's target market is not the blind, and that the client doesn't need or want to spend extra money making the site accessible on the offchance that one of the visitors can't see. I have no issue with that. It's not cost effective or necessary for EVERY site to cater to the blind because the chances of a blind person visiting that site are pretty slim. So if my clients say "I want a Flash-only site", then it's fine. I always, always point out accesibility issues at the start of every project (not just for the blind, but for people in, say, poorer countries who are less likely to have the fastest machines and the latest browsers). Then the client makes a judgement call based on their priorities and budget.

However, for an e-commerce site, especially one for a huge retailer, there is simply no excuse. Ditto for government sites, public information sites, charities etc. Where the target audience is 'everyone', then that is by definition going to include some blind people.

Quote:

It's not one of these subjective things you know. You can figure out fairly easily if they broke the law.

That's nonsense. Every day, precedents are set in court and the law is interpreted and examined precisely because it is not necessarily clear that someone broke it. Sometimes it's not even clear what the law is. The law doesn't say "websites have to be accessible to the blind" or "websites must be developed to W3C standards". The law says something along the lines of "retailers must take reasonable steps to ensure their facilities are available to the disabled" or some such. How that is interpreted and implemented is down to lawyers and judges.

[GodMark2]

A quick way for people to see if a speech program can navigate their page it to simply load it in their browser, after setting it to not load images. Target's site looks like this:



Not navigable. The whole page is images, no text. Several of the images have multiple links for different sections, without meaningful tags associated with them, only cryptic page references. This is page death to a vision impaired reader.

In contrast:



Everything meaningful is in text, and it still looks snazzy. A blind person could navigate this as easily as any of us.

A simple test, you'd think massively profitable Target could afford to do it if the non for profit JREF could.

[pipelineaudio]

so should sites that only sell porn pictures as *.jpg's be forced to make them blind accessible as well?

[Complexity]

Does a shopping site for the blind have any obligation to be usable by the deaf?

Serious question. I fail to see why any internet site has an obligation to be otherly accessible.

And I'm miffed that pipelineaudio got to the porn before I did.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts

Hi,

Sorry if I was being cryptic, <snip>

Thanks for that. Looks like I was not the only one who leaned something from your post.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Complexity

Does a shopping site for the blind have any obligation to be usable by the deaf?

Oh, how ....... stupid.

Quote:

Serious question. I fail to see why any internet site has an obligation to be otherly accessible.

You've already shown your opinion to be worthless and irrelevant. Not exactly honest to call such an ignorant strawman a "serious question".

Quote:

And I'm miffed

But of course you are. Like always. How precious.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by H3LL

One of my first arguments on this site was with Claus on disabled access to web sites. It was my baptism of fire against the mighty Claus

Thank you.

What, no sacrifice? No food and gold on my altar? No virgins thrown into the volcano in which I reside?

Originally Posted by H3LL

With luck, we should hear the tired old arguments voiced here again.

And those are?

Originally Posted by H3LL

ETA: It is interesting in its own right as well as a good source for developers to see how real people cope with real issues about web access when blind or partially sighted and what can be/is being done:

Royal National Institute of Blind People

I can't view it.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Well, if their site is not accessible to the blind, then huzzah for the judge.

If, however, it is (as Target claims), then this was unfair.

But it's really not difficult (although it is more expensive) to have an e-commerce site which the blind can use. Large retailers really need to have a clue by now.

It's simply a matter of how many potential customers you think you can afford to lose. I'm far from sure retailers realize just how many blind-to-various-degrees people there are out there.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

But look how many lawsuits it took before they put wheelchair ramps in. They aren't going to spend the money until they need to.

Very true. Or see the need for their business.

Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts

You'd think so, but unfortunately, the majority of web developers out there shouldn't be in business in the first place. There's a shortage of skill, so every cowboy out there calls himself a web developer these days and attempts to make websites without the first clue about best practices.

Oh, yes. I can tell you stories...

Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts

Out of curiosity, I checked Target's homepage with the W3C markup validation. It failed validation. Then I checked this forum. It failed too. I checked the randi.org homepage. Failed.

You can't expect someone who falls at the first stumbling block to implement accessibility standards properly. And apparently, most developers can't code valid XHTML.

Well, sometimes, it's a question of "Does it work?" more than a question of "Does it work and is perfectly written?" [Sarcasm] Most code written today is probably not written to adhere either standard or top efficiency. [/Sarcasm]

Which, of course, goes for a lot of other skills as well...

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I think the issue could be due to people using things like Flash animations and/or Java Applets in their web design.

It is, for a large part. The web is very much a visual medium.

[tkingdoll]

GodMark2, in the case, I really can't see what Target's defence was. They are claiming that their site complies with the law, so presumably they have decided to try and reinterpret the law rather than claim their site isn't accessible.

Interestingly, in the UK at least, an e-commerce site, in the law (for tax purposes as well as accessibility) is considered the same as a physical shop front. However, unlike a shop front, there's little except money stopping you from making it accessible to all.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Complexity

Does a shopping site for the blind have any obligation to be usable by the deaf?

Serious question. I fail to see why any internet site has an obligation to be otherly accessible.

Because anti-discrimination laws are not confined to the physical. Any business practice that unreasonably discriminates against the disabled is illegal under US law.

So, yes, since there are people who are both blind and deaf, a shopping site for the blind should also be usable by the deaf. (We actually had a student like that a while ago, although I didn't have him in any of my classes specifically.) That's not that difficult, actually. They have gadgets that will "read" text "aloud" in Braille using a little servo-driven pad. If you look at GodMark2's example, our former student would have had no problem wth the Randi site (it would still be accessible to him). Target, which has no text for the gadget to read, would be a blank screen.

[sophia8]

I can't believe we're still having this argument (wasn't there a thread about it three or four years ago?).
There are several arguments for making websites accessible:
It increases the site's readership (and thus increases your customer base);
It makes the site search-engine friendly (and thus increases your customer base);
It makes the site easier to load and read on old machines with old browsers (and thus increases your customer base).
In other words, it's sound business sense, like providing your physical shop with wheelchair access.


And note to Complexity, and any others who think the blind/visually impaired are nothing to do with them: you could lose your sight at any time through accident or illness. The first time I became aware of the need for web accessibility was back in 2002, when I took a computer programming class alongside a blind man. He'd been perfectly sighted and able-bodied until the age of thirty, when he got some sort of disease that took his sight in a week. He would regularly rant about the many websites that he couldn't "read".
Just remember, it could be you.....

[H3LL]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

What, no sacrifice? No food and gold on my altar? No virgins thrown into the volcano in which I reside?

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

I can't view it.

I can.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

It's simply a matter of how many potential customers you think you can afford to lose.

No, it's not simply a matter or losing customers. In many cases it's an interpretation of the law, in other cases a simple common courtesy.

------------------

I'll even take issue with Teek's argument about niche market publishers. If my spouse is keenly interested in "Dumpsters Around The World", if I was blind or partially sighted, why should I be denied access to the site to buy them a copy for their birthday. I don't want to read it, I don't need it in large print, braille or audio.

-------------------

I fail to see the argument that a vendor's perception of their customers should be used to exclude anyone when methods are available to include as many as possible.

By analogy. Should shops selling rock-climbing equipment be exempt from providing wheelchair access because so few of their customers are without limbs?

See how silly it sounds.

The methods to help are available. They are getting better all the time. It's not too hard for any web developer with skill to make the adjustments.

I heard a story, I have no idea whether true or not, that a wheelchair-bound person in Birmingham, spends all his time finding shops that he cannot access and successfully suing them. Few have a case to answer for not having access. They had 12(?) years advance notice and government grants to make corrections.

Maybe more court cases against web sites would help. Does the above chap, if he exists, have a partially sighted friend?

Could entrepreneurial developers be able to check websites, find if they fail, contact the owners, waive legal liability at them and offer to correct for a fee?

Maybe it would help weed out the "Oh, yes, I can tell you stories...." developers and help the skilled developers.

Do owners of failed sites have a case against their web developers if disabled access was never offered?

.

ETA: AND what Sophia8 said (Missed the post by failing to refresh)

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by sophia8

I can't believe we're still having this argument ....

It's just a couple of stupid people who don't actually care about the issue but seizing upon it just to get their rocks off by being nasty. The fact that they do it on such an issue says lots about them. They're not going to listen to rational arguments on the topic, since they don't actually care about it as such.

[tkingdoll]

Quote:

I'll even take issue with Teek's argument about niche market publishers. If my spouse is keenly interested in "Dumpsters Around The World", if I was blind or partially sighted, why should I be denied access to the site to buy them a copy for their birthday. I don't want to read it, I don't need it in large print, braille or audio.

H3LL, you haven't read what I wrote. ANY site that SELLS something is an e-commerce site. I already stated that e-commerce sites absolutely should be accessible. You shouldn't stop a blind person buying what a sighted person can freely buy.

You don't buy the book on the site about the book. Publishers are not retailers, although their main sites often have an e-commerce section (which should be fully accessible). But a microsite which exists only to promote a book does not need to be accessible to the blind. It would be an ideal world if it did, but the chances of a blind person looking at the site are not large enough to justify sacrificing the style that the client wants (e.g. Flash content) or paying the extra money. If you want to buy the book, go to Amazon.

Here's an example: http://www.dylanmessaging.com/home

That is one of the most amazing websites on the internet. But it doesn't work for the blind. Conceptually, it doesn't work for the blind, so there's zero point in it working for the blind in development, either. It would be insanity to say "this site has to work for the blind, therefore you can't have the create-your-own-Dylan-video-message idea".

The minute you try and make ALL sites accessible to the blind, you lose a massive chunk of creativity. Remember that most people are not blind. It's a bit like insisting that blind people should be able to go and touch the Mona Lisa.

[Darth Rotor]

If a blind person at work accesses video porn on the internet that he can't see, should he be fired?

DR

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by H3LL

I can.

*wooosh*

[Giggywig]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

*wooosh*

Does this mean that you think the point flew over H3ll's head? Could you comment on why you can't view the website?

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Because anti-discrimination laws are not confined to the physical. Any business practice that unreasonably discriminates against the disabled is illegal under US law.

I don't think that this is any of the government's business.

I can think of many moral and pragmatic reasons to make buildings and internet sites accessible. I don't think doing so should be compelled by law.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by sophia8

And note to Complexity, and any others who think the blind/visually impaired are nothing to do with them: you could lose your sight at any time through accident or illness. The first time I became aware of the need for web accessibility was back in 2002, when I took a computer programming class alongside a blind man. He'd been perfectly sighted and able-bodied until the age of thirty, when he got some sort of disease that took his sight in a week. He would regularly rant about the many websites that he couldn't "read".
Just remember, it could be you.....

I'm in favor of accessibility; I don't think it should be compelled.

It is very likely that I will lose my vision before I die. I think ten more years of legal vision is optimistic. I'm sure I will rant with the best of them. I don't think I should be able to use the government to force people and companies to make sites accessible.

[pipelineaudio]

Can we ban any movie that shows a male and female in love? Its not fair to homosexuals.

Can we ban the selling of condoms? Its not fair to women since they have no rods

Can we ban gloves? They arent fair to people that dont have hands

this is ridiculous.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Complexity

I don't think that this is any of the government's business.

That is of course your perogative. You may also believe that it is not the government's business whether or not you beat your wife.

Society at large, and the government that represents that society, disagrees. As such, they have enacted laws that you are compelled to obey regardless of whether you think it's their business.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Giggywig

Does this mean that you think the point flew over H3ll's head? Could you comment on why you can't view the website?

It's a website for the Royal National Institute of Blind People.







Which I can't view.





Tough crowd.

[H3LL]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

H3LL, you haven't read what I wrote.

Probably not fully getting your meaning, but your comments were rather familiar:

From the article linked below:

Quote:

People who design in Flash "consider themselves artists," said accessibility expert Joe Clark. "They find the idea of a blind person wanting to (use) their site to be slightly weird."

Quote:

"We hesitated to use Flash, but we wanted (the site) to be noticed. We wanted it to be bleeding-edge. We had committed to a Shockwave game, and since we were going in that direction, we decide to try to use Flash."

Hopefully all this will be changing (or has changed):

Quote:

Smith hopes to use Flash MX to retrofit the site so blind children can also use it.

and

Quote:

"The main impetus was to demonstrate what the new version of Flash is capable of, in terms of accessibility," said Peter Pinch, director of technology for interactive content at WGBH Interactive.

"It's very exciting to be able to reach a broader audience than in the past -– to think that blind, visually impaired and deaf users can enjoy our content, as well as everyone else," he said.

Excerpts taken from the full article.... Flash News Flash: It's Accessible

I'll reiterate:

I fail to see the argument that a vendor's perception of their customers should be used to exclude anyone when methods are available to include as many as possible.

.

[Travis]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. We're actually creating software to let blind people "view" webpages?

When did we stop throwing them into the river to drown?


I'm always so behind on these things.

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by H3LL

Probably not fully getting your meaning, but your comments were rather familiar:

From the arrticle linked below:





Hopefully all this will be changing (or has changed):



and



Excerpts taken from the full article.... Flash News Flash: It's Accessible

.

I assume you aren't a developer? The techniques described in that article aren't practical for a huge amount of sites. And they add significant man hours to a project which most sites aren't worth paying for. And the example given is for an educational science site. Such a site should be accessible, it's a public service.

Did you look at the Dylan site I linked to? There's no way of making that blind-accessible because the video output changes. Do you therefore think the site shouldn't exist?

Blind people can buy the Dylan album anywhere - the site promoting it is irrelevant to their needs. As I said, it's like complaining that they can't touch the Mona Lisa, yes it's a shame, but that's not what the artist had in mind when he created it. They're missing out on an experience that the sighted are fortunate to have. That's going to happen - they're blind.

The idea that all websites could or should be 'viewable' to the blind is silly. Only those equivalent to a shop front, in law, should have to adhere to disability discrimination laws. Nowhere does the law say "blind people must have exactly the same experiences in life as the sighted". That would be nuts.

And it's also important to realise that companies make decisions based on ROI. When building a promotional site (not an e-commerce site), they should take into account whether or not the extra expenditure on accessibility will be repaid in additional revenue. With a niche market site, that's unlikely to be the case.

Here's another great site the blind can't use: http://mysims.ea.com/

That's mainly because the developers think having a site which reflects the game (which can only be done in Flash) far outweighs the extremely unlikely chance that a blind person is interested in reading about a game they can't play. They aren't going to pay for extra development, there's zero ROI. They would have to pay for an entirely separate site for the blind. Is it worth it? No.

See www.jkrowling.com for an example of how you have to have two different sites to have Flash for the blind. Now think about how much extra that cost JK Rowling.