As most of you know, I usually have a strong opinion on the cases I review. This time, I want to give my readers the opportunity to comment on the future of the Americans with Disabilities Act as it applies to websites. In National Federation of the Blind, et al. v Target Corporation, No. C 06-01802 MHP (N.D. Ca., Sept. 5, 2006), Target was sued because its retail website, Target.com, was not accessible to the blind allegedly in violation of the ADA. Although the organization’s motion for a mandatory injunction to require Target to make their site accessible was denied, the court indicated that the Federation could proceed with its lawsuit. In 2008, Target agreed to settle by paying $6,000,000 to the Federation and agreeing to modify its website with the input of the Federation. Although this case was decided in California and may not set a national precedent, it does seem consistent with the Justice Department’s previous position, although inconsistent with previous court decisions. The questions I am looking for input on are: Are all websites public accommodations? If not, are websites public accommodations if they are integral to a business which serves the public, such as a retailer? What is the cost of making a website accessible? Does making a website accessible reduce its visual appeal? What other issues with websites do people with disabilities encounter? It is my understanding that, in addition to being accessible to those with visual impairments, websites with a “universal design” are more apt to display properly on handheld devices like the iPhone. I am wondering if instead of additional legislation and lawsuits, there is a way to encourage website accessibility in a way that is both cost effective and useful.
What do you think about website accessibility?
March 7, 2010 by kimberlyhouser
In the eyes of the law 
If I had a website, I guess I would be getting sued too since I would not originally set the website for people who cannot see. However, this case somewhat deals with “If I don’t know the law, then I guess it excludes me” which is false but making me liable whether or not I know websites are suppose to accomodate the blind.
So “Are websites public accommodations if they are integral to a business which serves the public, such as a retailer?” Only if the company’s mission or objective is to “serve everyone” but not if it was not originally part of the strategy or meant for a specific type of audience.
I believe Target is not liable. If the National Federation for the Blind is aware of it, perhaps they can use their leverage to generate interest in creating new software for the blind. When imagining a website, I would not think to include accommodations for the blind. Using less appealing font may even detract from Target’s online sales. If all websites that sell something are considered public, then I believe there would be a lot more lawsuits.
I agree. I think a good plan of action would be for the National Federation to notify their favorite websites and ask they make one that is accessible by their software. With this new website design would come a new domain name, and where Target.”COM” was inaccessible by the National Federation for the Blind, Target.”WHATEVER” could be accessed and used by people with vision impairments.
I believe that because Target.com is an online retail store, it should be held to the same standards as a brick and mortar location. (i.e. make all necessary accommodations for the disabled) Having said that, I think that the $6,000,000 that Target had to pay was a ridiculous sum. It’s not like that is going to get distributed to any actual blind people, and if it does it is because they work for NFB. Maybe to curb the loss of visual appeal associated with their current website, Target could make a link on their homepage that allowed disabled people to access a more screen-reader friendly version of Target.com
Target is a major corporation that makes an incredible amount of profit. Their success makes them more likely to be subjected, or “targeted” for law suits.
Q: Should Target do what it can to ensure all consumers access to their services and products provided?
A: Yes, I think so. There is no reason for a major corporation to exclude persons from their business. That would be bad business. Seeing how Target is a business, and cares about profits, I would expect that they are doing all they can to capture a larger market share, and that any discrimination to potential consumers would be unintentional.
Q: Is it right that Target is being sued?
A: If Target has been notified about their website and how it is inaccessible to people who are vision impaired, and failed to make necessary accommodations, then yes, they deserved being sued. I just hope that this case doesn’t lead to people hunting for websites that do not have accommodations for blind people, and look opportunities to sue.
In my opinion, this case is ridiculous. Why should target have to make their website accessible to the blind? If anything they are hurting their own business by “denying” customers because their website doesn’t accommodate certain people. Not to sound insensitive, but I don’t think the blind should be shopping online. It is not like they can see what they are buying. Target should not have to accommodate the public because they are a business in a capitalistic society and if they want to restrict their clientele by not appealing to certain peoples needs, that should be their choice. I apologize if I offended anyone with my comment about how the blind can’t see anyway, but realistically how many blind people actually shop online? I have never heard of a situation like this and I think it is unreasonable that target had to pay $6,000,000.
I do not think that Target should be liable. The main reason is it sets the standard for every other business to make their website accessible to the blind. I do not know how much it costs to have a professional make a website accessible for the blind, but I know that there are business that do not have the extra money to change their website.
The most confusing part of this case is understanding if any, some, or all websites require public accommodations. Congress should reexamine the definition of a public accommodation in the ADA and either include a clearly defined set of websites or explicitly exclude websites altogether. In spite of this definition, the website of a retail company serves the public and is an integral part of a business. There are many products on the Target website that are not sold in stores, by failing to make their website accessible, target is limiting/denying the blind from access to these products. If the possibility and option to make a website accessible to the disabled is there, it should be expected of retail websites to implement it.
Of course there is a cost to do this, but high levels of accessibility are possible without great amounts of effort. You don’t have to necessarily reduce the visual appeal of a website to make it acceptable, but there has to be trade-off. Accessibility and design both have the same goal: make it so that the user experience with their sites is not less enjoyable than their experience on the sites of competitors. The key is for designers to determine what should and can be reasonably done and for accessibiliters to determine what should and can be reasonably expected of designers. I don’t think the ADA is asking Target to go all out with making their website accessible, they are just asking for the minimum required accessibility. Bottom line, both can be done so both should be done.
I do believe that retail websites are public accommodations since the main goal of almost every retail business is to have a wide customer base bringing the most revenue possible. However, if the website has a niche market that isn’t normally targeted towards the vision impaired, for example gun sales, I don’t believe they should be held liable. From a service standpoint it is obviously more efficient to accommodate everyone, but where do you draw the line between accommodating for people and letting people accommodate for themselves. Therefore I believe that it would be in a websites best interest to accommodate everyone, but depending on the target market they are pursuing and the product/services they are providing, they shouldn’t be held liable for not doing so.
In this case, I feel like public institution’s websites should be accessible to the blind. Here I am thinking of local libraries, parks/recreation, universities, and all government websites. I feel like being unable to access an online store does not hinder blind people’s ability to take part in society fully.
I truly don’t believe Target should be held liable for making their website accessible to the blind. Whether they choose to make it easier for that market to buy things from them is at their discretion. I also find it sad to believe that they are to some degree discriminating against the blind if they are not making their site accessible to everyone. Target should not have had to pay 6 million dollars if they chose not to do so. It is their right to sell to whomever they want.
I do not believe that Target should be forced to redesign their website to suit the visually impaired. I think that the National Federation of the Blind should be able to petition companies and request changes to websites, but a company should not be forced to change its website and possibly reduce the site’s visual appeal to suit a very small portion of the population. If this change was forced upon companies, it would need to be applied almost universally and would generate an overwhelming number lawsuits. It is difficult to determine which websites should be forced to change. While I still do not understand how the blind effectively navigate the internet, let alone shop online, I believe the best solution for companies that decide to change their layouts is to generate an alternate web page. For example, each site could include a link in a universal location (let’s go with the bottom left corner) that routs the viewer to the “blind accessible page.” Sites already do this with the English/Spanish/French options, go ahead and add one for the blind.
I am not sure what the American with Disabilities Act entails, but $6,000,000 does seem a bit extreme. I believe that websites to some extent accomodate to the public. If a website is made then it is sure to be seen by someone. If you’re a retail business then I definitely think that its website should serve the public and be open to the public. Now in this case, blind people were excluded from the target website and they are part of the public, but I think that the Federation could have come up with another idea to help Target’s situation rather than sue them and get a ridiculous amount of money from target. But now a days, that’s what it’s all about, money and that is the way the Federation chose to go about this case. Will target learn from this? Probably. I just think that the whole case was a little extreme.
This is the main reason I read intheeyesofthelaw.com. Unbelievable post.
Personally, I don’t think Target should have had to redo its website to accommodate the blind. The website, for Target, is an extension of its business designed to capture the interests of more individuals in a way that is more convenient for them. Unfortunately, the blind are probably not among the target audience in this case. Target has created the website to be visual appealing and catch someone’s eye when an individual enters the site. If by redoing the website it costs a company a huge sum of money(like $6,000,000) it goes against the whole reason for the website itself, to make additional profits.
I do not believe that any website should be forced to be created in such a way that it is available to everyone. I see this as another example of the government taking too much control. Although, it would be in Target’s best interest to be able to reach every possible customer. I could see how the cost of revamping the website to be available to blind consumers could be very costly to change, and would lose visual appeal to the non-blind consumers. Before the internet was available, people visited the stores itself to find what they wanted and I’m sure that could be an option to solve this problem. I do not know if a Target store was readily available to the person/people filing suit. Assuming one was not, they should find another store online or visit a different store to find what they are looking for.
In my opinion, because Target is a corporate retail outlet I believe they have some responsibility for making their website accessible to everyone. Websites are extremely helpful when trying to obtain information about certain products and even more helpful when those products are delivered to your door. This convenience is invaluable to the blind because they avoid the pressures of purchasing and finding products in the public eye, and home delivery makes their shopping experience extremely easy. I honestly do not understand the opinions of disregard for the disabled and the burdens they endure that my fellow peers are broadcasting. However what I can understand is, where do you draw the line? Who should be liable for making their websites accessible? As difficult as it might be, it is obvious to me that Target should be included in a group that should make their website available to all, including the blind. What is troubling is that possibly all websites are subject to being liable for not being accessible to all.
In contrast, I believe that the National Federation of the Blind has some responsibility to further advance the technology of website reading software. Hopefully, the $6,000,000 settlement will be used responsibly and for the improvement of this software. Another small complaint I have is the apparent blasphemy everyone feels towards a $6,000,000 out of court settlement. Target is one of the largest retail merchandising corporations in America whose revenue is billions upon billions of dollars annually; I’m sure they aren’t going to miss the comparatively small “donation” to the NFB.
I am aware that the principle goal of market capitalism is to advance profits for a corporation; but, who is to say that making Target’s website user friendly for all wont increase their profits? Target should take this opportunity to obtain good publicity, and broadcast their websites’ new ability to be read by all.
To me, it makes sense that a website is a public accommodation, however there is no universal standard for it. I think it’s outrageous that Target paid $6 mil to the NFB. I understand that some sales are online only and not everything is available in store, but I also agree with the above mentioned that Target should have a seperate link that redirects to a seperate website that can make those accommodations.
I think that based on the technological advances of society as a whole, especially for the younger generation, websites have indeed become public accomodations. I don’t think however, that Target should owe 6 million dollars to the Federation because their website couldn’t be accessed by the visually impaired. I don’t think Target intentionally decided not to make their site non accessible by the blind, but I guess they paid for their lack of knowledge by losing out on 6 million. Does this mean that every company now has to redesign their website to fit the needs of the visually impaired? It doesn’t seem fair to me. I think if i was blind however, I would think differently.
I don’t think Target should change their existing site. Good website design is based on graphics, especially interactive ones. This allows customers to become more interested in certain products. A site with bad design will drive customers away. What Target should create is a site specifically for the visual impaired. That way they can appeal to both customer bases. As for the 6mil paid to the NFB, that is an outrageous sum. I am sure there will be many more suits to follow.
The Internet is a fairly new playing field for retail businesses and old laws should in no way be applicable to the inherent differences involved in internet retailer-ship. Im sure the internet as a whole is a challenge for all blind people and I cannot assume there is any practical way for the blind to truly utilize the Internet the way everyone else does. Yes, retailers should attempt to make it possible for the blind to use their websites and become online customers just the same as they would be in the store, but they shouldn’t be held responsible and sued for not having this electronic infrastructure already set up. I would imagine there are computer programs out there for the blind so they are able to use computers in a general sense that would probably work with the internet. (Something like a speech program that reads words on any given page or interprets visual cues into audio cues for the user, but I don’t know.) All in all, Target is in no way at fault, and maybe the Federation just wanted some public exposure, so they decided to unfairly exploit the law and lack of internet specific laws. The least I can hope for is that they are actually making good use of this money and researching better ways to make the internet accessible to the blind. Although suing their way to ample funding for such projects is ridiculous. One day technology make normal life easier for the blind, but doing so is in no way the responsibility of Target or any website owner for that matter.
It is my personal belief that Target should not be held responsible to insure that Americans with disabilities can visit their websites and enjoy the complete funtionality of the said website. If you are a blind person then I really do not believe that you should be surfing the internet and holding others liable for your specific problem. The internet was not designed for those without their sense of sight. Therefore it is an unreasonable request for those people to demand equality on the Internet.