I was reading about web standards and handicap accessibility when I stumbled across the topic of Target.com getting sued by http://www.nfb.org/nfb/Default.asp for not being handicap accessible.

Shouldn't the company suing also meet these requirements?

Am I missing something here?

Do they not ? The National Federation for the Blind have an inaccessible site ? I never looked.. lol.

If Target weren't being so bull-headed about fixing the glaring problems with their site, it never would have gone to a class-action.

Accessibility is the law in the UK, and it's the law in the US for government and public access sites - this case could make it law for EVERY site - it bears watching.

Hmm the NFB site could be better than it is - spacer gifs aaaargh!

<!--wysiwyg_area--></font><!--wysiwyg_area--><!--wysiwyg_area--><!--wysiwyg_area-->
<!--WYSIWYG_AREA-->

I wonder if the WYSIWYG editor would have something to do with that. Nahhhh...of course not.

The weird thing about the spacer gif is that it actually appears to serve a purpose other than to act as a spacer. They're using it as a means to indicate skipping navigation and going straight to main content. I'm not sure if that's okay or not...I can see an argument either way (although I'm leaning against it).

There are also the non-underlined links that I just noticed.

Good call, sydpix. This hypocrisy reeks of less than awesomeness.

Ha ha ha... I just thought of something: the law applies in the country which your viewing from, does it not? Does this mean a, say, Martian website owner that gets his/her website viewed by people in the UK can be sued for not meeting accessibility issues?

I heard about this when it first started. I don't think it's so absurd to ask for a company to change it's web site to be more accessible. The guy who started this is a blind college student and good for him for trying to make it easier for those in his position. What I don't agree with is him asking for 'damages'. They shouldn't have to pay anything. It's not like the site hurt anyone. I read a piece on it that says they chose Target because of it's reputation, to make an example out of them. I guess they are hoping once they get them to change the rest will just fall in suit.

I've had this conversation with other webmasters and the views have been pretty mixed.

I'll be watching to see the outcome. I think it will be interesting.

I do think it's funny that they are not addressing these same issues with their own website. I'm sure that will come up.

Just a thought, but why does a website have to be accessible to everyone? If it is your own personal work and someone cannot access it, say because of visual acuity, so what? I am in agreement that public service/government sites etc should have universal accessibility as they can have an impediment on an individuals life, but not being able to view someone's photographs is hardly life and death is it? Will this "intellectual right to roam" spill over into books? Will publishers be forced to issue a braille version as well as standard print? Living in one of the most politically correct countries in the world the "equal rights Stasi" will have a field day with this.

Theoretically, it doesn't, Lol999. The problem in this particular case is that the NFB is one of the special interest groups who is the first on board to complain about anything that isn't accessible.

Playboy has a Braille edition, believe it or not. Sadly, the Braille is just for the articles, though.

I'm not against accessibility and all, but I do think that some disabled people can sometimes go a bit far with their actions and demands. I know it's now become law over here that all places of work or leisure must be accessible to people with wheelchairs - that means a lot of churches (who may not even have a disabled member or a large congregation) have to install expensive adjustments to ensure that people with wheelchairs can't sue them or anything.

People with disabilities need to understand that they cannot live a life exactly like non-disabled people - it's unfortunate but it's life. Government-led things should be accessible to all because everyone's taxes go to pay for buildings or web sites etc., but private web sites should not be FORCED to change their web site by law. It should be up to them - they would probably find it beneficial to make it accessible, but being sued for something like this is a bit extreme.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Theoretically, it doesn't, Lol999. The problem in this particular case is that the NFB is one of the special interest groups who is the first on board to complain about anything that isn't accessible.

Well I'm all for sticking it to hypocrites, so carry on!

serandfae - it would have hella bumps for the Pam Anderson edition!

Originally Posted by whym

I'm not against accessibility and all, but I do think that some disabled people can sometimes go a bit far with their actions and demands. I know it's now become law over here that all places of work or leisure must be accessible to people with wheelchairs - that means a lot of churches (who may not even have a disabled member or a large congregation) have to install expensive adjustments to ensure that people with wheelchairs can't sue them or anything.

People with disabilities need to understand that they cannot live a life exactly like non-disabled people - it's unfortunate but it's life. Government-led things should be accessible to all because everyone's taxes go to pay for buildings or web sites etc., but private web sites should not be FORCED to change their web site by law. It should be up to them - they would probably find it beneficial to make it accessible, but being sued for something like this is a bit extreme.

I'm with you whym. I have an "interest" in a delicatessen. We have double doors but limited floor space, so we have had to ban people coming in with those disabled scooters. Instead we offer a "service at the door" option. Most of the old dears are fine and pleasant, but one needs throwing, along with her scooter, down an old pit shaft

Most Web accessiblilty issues are common sense, and really apply to the broader audience--designers and developers should want their sites to be usable by the broadest audience possible. But it can go overboard.

One thing I've been working with of late especially are "accessible" dropdown menus. Thing is, I'd like my menus to be navigable by tab-index and be viewable at the same time when accessed. Still working out the bugs there. Most CSS dropdown menus fail accessibility on that point, IMO.