Put on your fire retardant undies (Lawsuits on design ok)

It doesn't matter if you do all the error checking in the world, or if you have the most beautiful graphics, if your site or application design isn't usable, it's not going to do well. Get input and advice on usability and user interface issues here.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Put on your fire retardant undies (Lawsuits on design ok)

Post by feyd »

So I was going through my feed from Slashdot a moment ago and found this gem.
Slashdot wrote:BcNexus writes "According to the Associated Press, a California judge has ruled that a lawsuit brought against the Target Corporation may proceed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The catch here is that the suit, leveled by the National Federation of the Blind, concerns the design of Target's website. Could this set a precedent and subsequent flood of lawsuits against websites? What if another design is not tractable?"

From the article: "'What this means is that any place of business that provides services, such as the opportunity to buy products on a website, is now, a place of accommodation and therefore falls under the ADA,' said Kathy Wahlbin, Mindshare's Director of User Experience and expert on accessibility. 'The good news is that being compliant is not difficult nor is it expensive. And it provides the additional benefit of making accessible web sites easier for search engines to find and prioritize.'"
I guess it's time to put on some fire retardant undies for some of us out there.
Last edited by feyd on Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

I had heard of this when the original complaint was filed. I never thought it would make it to a court room. Apparently I was wrong.

Apparently accessibility is a necessity. At least if you want to make sure you are not sued.
matthijs
DevNet Master
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:57 pm

Post by matthijs »

I knew about the Target case. But what I don't understand from reading the article you linked to feyd, has that case been decided on already? Or has the judge only decided that the ADA will be applied to this case?
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

The case has been mentioned here before, yes.

As for the ADA being applicable, from what I've read, yes the case will fall under ADA governance. Which, means all sites which do not comply with ADA may fall under as well if another case such as this happens.

Yay for accessibility, boo for dragging sites through court. Net result: ±0
matthijs
DevNet Master
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:57 pm

Post by matthijs »

I have a split feeling about this. On one side, I think it's good that people/groups have the means to do something about sites which are inaccessible. On the other side, it would be so much better if no courtroom would be needed in cases like this. It would be nice if only "free market" and good/bad publicity would push or pull companies in making their sites accessible.

But I think a change of mind like this will take time. I'm wondering though: what is the driving force behind the accessibility of buildings? You know, almost any building here in the netherlands has ramps and elivators to provide for people in wheelchairs. (well ok those elevators are handy for the 98% lazy population as well). Is that only by force of law or are companies willing to invest in accessibility voluntarily?
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

matthijs wrote:But I think a change of mind like this will take time. I'm wondering though: what is the driving force behind the accessibility of buildings? You know, almost any building here in the netherlands has ramps and elivators to provide for people in wheelchairs. (well ok those elevators are handy for the 98% lazy population as well). Is that only by force of law or are companies willing to invest in accessibility voluntarily?
I believe most companies take the numbers approach. "Is it more or less expensive to make accommodations for people a, b, and c than it is to be sued by them for breaking a law?" Quite often, it's less expensive to make the accommodations.

I agree that it would feel better if the companies didn't have to be dragged into court, and I find it silly that Target let it go that far to begin with. What I'm really hoping though is that people don't get suit-happy and go after companies that can't afford to or shouldn't have to fight such battles resulting in the business folding or something.
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

Funny you should bring up buildings. I know that in the US, there are specific building code requirements that need to be met before a building inspector will approve the permit for proceeding with the build. At least as it relates to commercial buildings. Some of these things go straight to accessibility, like handicap parking spaces, wallbars in the restrooms, ramps to the front door, elevators for multi-floor buildings, etc. I believe this became legislation after a suit of some sort a while ago. So it doesn't exactly surprise me that this Target suit was brought on. Though, like I said, I am a little surprised that it is going to court.
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

Everah wrote:Funny you should bring up buildings. I know that in the US, there are specific building code requirements that need to be met before a building inspector will approve the permit for proceeding with the build. At least as it relates to commercial buildings. Some of these things go straight to accessibility, like handicap parking spaces, wallbars in the restrooms, ramps to the front door, elevators for multi-floor buildings, etc. I believe this became legislation after a suit of some sort a while ago. So it doesn't exactly surprise me that this Target suit was brought on. Though, like I said, I am a little surprised that it is going to court.
Yeah, it's in the US building codes. I was referring more to the retrofitting of older buildings that were build before the law was in place. For example, several schools I've attended were built well before these laws were on the books. So they've since had to be retrofitted for access by disabled persons. While I agree they should have equal opportunity for access, sometimes the expense of doing so can severly affect the budget for many other things.
User avatar
Christopher
Site Administrator
Posts: 13596
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: New York, NY, US

Post by Christopher »

I think the most interesting thing about this is that the Web has become so engrained in our lives that it is now considered part of a company's place of business. It is a fascinating concept that electronic signals that make phosphors or diodes glow in specific patterns can be a place of business -- but we all know that in reality that Target's website is as much a place of business for the company as a store.

I think I might have mixed feelings about this subject if it was actually difficult to accomodate people with disabilities. But as noted it really isn't, especially for giant corporations who I firmly believe need our continuous prodding to do the righr thing.
(#10850)
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Post by alex.barylski »

Perfect...just what I was looking for ;)

Thanks dude
Post Reply