Court Rules Against Target
This is an interesting situation. A federal court judge has ruled that Target needs to stand trial for having a website that is not sufficiently accessible to visually-impaired users, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I can't decide if this is a good thing or if it's really, really scary.
Years ago, at the urging of my second husband's union and because of the company's labor practices, I stopped shopping at Target. After reading this article, I am quite happy that I still don't patronize the business. Some examples of why Target earned a judge's wrath and sits at the top of my do-not-shop list:
What about customers who use wheelchairs? Does Target feel that a lack of ramps leading into a facility wouldn't violate ADA because the customer could just ask someone to carry them into the store? Well, that is just about as ignorant as their argument about website accessibility.
Of course, as the owner of a retail website, it's a bit frightening to know that there are actually laws, in this case California laws, that mandate usability standards. It makes me wonder if my little site would be subject to such stringent requirements. Probably not, but one just never knows.


Years ago, at the urging of my second husband's union and because of the company's labor practices, I stopped shopping at Target. After reading this article, I am quite happy that I still don't patronize the business. Some examples of why Target earned a judge's wrath and sits at the top of my do-not-shop list:
Target has long been the most prominent opponent of forcing e-commerce site executives to adhere to accessibility rules designed for their brick-and-mortar counterparts.Can you believe that nonsense?! If a consumer, through whatever means necessary, manages to eventually make a purchase through the Target website then that proves there is no case? Even if they have to enlist the assistance of a friend or relative who isn't visually-impaired?
Another Target argument had been that many site visitors were able to make their purchases, albeit with a lot of extra effort and the help of others. But since they had indeed completed their purchase, Target argued that they had no claim. In cases where the consumer had not made any purchases because the site's lack of accessibility drove them away, Target argued, there was again no damage as it's impossible to prove what the customer would have done had the site been perfectly accessible.
What about customers who use wheelchairs? Does Target feel that a lack of ramps leading into a facility wouldn't violate ADA because the customer could just ask someone to carry them into the store? Well, that is just about as ignorant as their argument about website accessibility.
Of course, as the owner of a retail website, it's a bit frightening to know that there are actually laws, in this case California laws, that mandate usability standards. It makes me wonder if my little site would be subject to such stringent requirements. Probably not, but one just never knows.

Don't forget to visit JMark Afghans and My Gallery at Zazzle
We also have a page on Squidoo that supports the Genocide Intervention Network.
We look forward to seeing you online.
God Bless!
Jules

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home