Opera Developer News

Two cheers for the Target/NFB accessibility settlement

By Bruce Lawsonbrucelawson. Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:00:26 PM

The American National Federation for the Blind brought a class action lawsuit against target.com for inaccessibility of its website (which is, interestingly, "powered by Amazon.com").

After lots of to-and-fro, news came today that Target have settled, paying $6million into a fund from which those affected by its inaccessiiblity (blind people in California) can claim.

Presumably (Caveat: I am not a lawyer, but I am gorgeous) this sets a precedent in the USA that many businesses will find unwelcome, but which will presumably lead to more accessible websites.

So why only two cheers?

Well, $6million is lots of money, but given that Target gives away $3million every week "to its local communities through grants and special programs", it isn't such a great investment by Target. The terms of the settlement also means that the only people being catered for by this settlement are blind screenreader users:

NFB will run an automated monitoring tool called Worldspace on Target.com every quarter...

Target shall ensure that the Target.com website meets the Target Online Assistive Technology Guidelines [Word document] ... and that blind guests using screen-reader software may acquire the same information and engage in the same transactions as are available to sighted guests with substantially equivalent ease of use.

Upon completion of the changes to Target.com pursuant to Section 6.2 herein, the NFB shall certify the Target.com website through its NFB Nonvisual Accessibility Certification program using the standard techniques and criteria of that program.

NFB will annually report to Target the results of user testing by 5 to 15 blind persons with varying skill levels and using JAWS...

Target shall ensure that complaints received from guests regarding the accessibility of Target.com by those using screen-reader technology are reported to a Target employee responsible for ensuring that Target.com is accessible.

Target shall provide to the NFB a quarterly summary of any complaints received from guests regarding the accessibility or usability of Target.com by those using screen-reader technology...

NFB Nonvisual Accessibility Certification. Upon completion of the changes to Target.com pursuant to Section 6.2 herein, the NFB shall certify the Target.com website through its NFB Nonvisual Accessibility Certification program using the standard techniques and criteria of that program.

I have no idea what the NFB Nonvisual Accessibility Certification program actually entails, but the NFB's legitimate remit probably means it's concerned only with screenreader access:

Working with members of the technology community, the National Federation of the Blind has developed a rigorous procedure by which Web sites and applications that have made special efforts to be accessible to the blind can be identified and recognized.

Accessibility is more than just blind people who use screenreaders. It's a pity (but it's understandable) that the NFB didn't think of other groups with accessibility problems and require development to standards laid down in the internationally-recognised, open WCAG guidelines rather than their own proprietary process.

The danger is that corporations and developers will start developing for the assistive technologies and monitoring tools (machines) rather than people, and that would be a very retrograde step.

HTML5 Validator now in betaOpen the Web update: LiveJournal

Comments

Unregistered user # Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:42:26 AM

Michael writes: It is disappointing indeed. I was rather hoping the outcome would be more substantial, and provide solid evidence for lower profile sites (ie those away from the scrutiny of disability groups) to be developed to standards.

Unregistered user # Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:40:58 AM

Isofarro writes: The settlement is a step forward. Target are committed to fixing the problems with their site that affect screenreader users. That in itself, is all the NFB originally asked for, and the reason why they were prepared to pursue this all the way to court. Target could have bailed out on day one and made some relatively trivial fixes. The $6 million is pocket change to Target, and not the reason the NFB brought this to court. But it's going to worry a few people especially when it wasn't a fine, but a voluntary payment. That money can go into getting more vision impaired people online with proper hardware and software. Hopefully it will. The web is an enabler of independence. When I noticed that Target repaired some of the initial problems, the chances of this not being settled were minimal. I'm surprised the settlement took this long. I accept your argument that the NFB are only looking out for blind screen reader users - but that is largely their remit. They shouldn't be criticised for looking after their members, that is the point behind these non-profit organisations. There's nothing stopping other disability organisations from pursuing their accessibility issues with Target. It is unfair to expect the NFB to handle it by themselves - we need the other disability organisations to also stand up for their members social and civil rights.

Unregistered user # Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:07:31 AM

bruce writes: Isofarro - I agree that it's a step forward, and that the NFB is legitimately pursuing the interests of blind people. But it's not the landmark victory that many hoped for - and many seem to be celebrating it as.

Unregistered user # Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:19:27 PM

Matt May writes: I read the Target Online Assistive Technology Guidelines, and I'm happy to say it's not true that they're only catering to blind users. There are directives on color, keyboard accessibility, even captioning. And that's just what I remember overnight.

Bruce Lawsonbrucelawson # Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:59:15 PM

When I first wrote this, the TOATG hadn't been posted.

But I see only one reference to captioning, and that is "Improve the usability of all time-based and interactive multimedia - including Flash and Acrobat content - by using text captioning and/or synchronized audio", and the tone of everything else I quote suggests that is for the benefit blind people, not the deaf.

If you use a Captcha, you must "provide a non-graphic equivalent, such as an audio alternative" which wouldn't be much use to deaf/blind people.

The directives on color, keyboard accessibility are mostly for those with visual impairments and screenreader users. Again, nothing wrong with that -- the NFB represents blind people, after all.

But if they'd used WCAG as the baseline, it would have benefited other groups as well. I wonder why they decided not to?

Unregistered user # Friday, August 29, 2008 8:42:55 AM

Anonymous writes: ...keyboard accessibility may benefit those with visual impairments, but I'd suggest it's also a massive benefit for those with motor impairments. What about people with Parkinsons? or CP? Won't they benefit from keyboard accessibility? Saying that it's "mostly for" visual impairments is to ignore or sideline the benefits it may bring to people with these conditions. I actually think it's an excellent settlement; it will make the site more accessible and that - rather than 'punishment' - was surely the point of the exercise.

Unregistered user # Friday, August 29, 2008 8:43:23 AM

JackP writes: ...darn... forgot to type my name in. That last one was me.

Unregistered user # Friday, August 29, 2008 9:10:22 PM

Anonymous writes: I think that it should be up to Target whether they want to make their site accessible to blind people or not. I think it is wrong for any government entity to require a private enterprise to open up its website to a group of people if the private enterprise chooses not to. I am disappointed by this ruling. A government's powers are delegated to it by the poeple. A goverment has no right to do anything that the individuals it represents do not have the right to do. This whole mindset that governments somehow have all this authority is frustrating. Please think about these issues more thoroughly before approving governmental actions.

Unregistered user # Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:34:36 AM

JackP writes: The implication that people haven't already thought about these issues thoroughly is somewhat insulting: not everyone agrees with your sentiment that it is wrong for a government entity to require a private enterprise to open up its website/store etc. However, I accept that there are certainly a significant group of people who share your point of view -- but there is also a significant group of people who share mine. Not everyone is a full-on "free market capitalist": and not being so doesn't necessarily make them "bad people" or "wrong". Equally, I'm not assuming you're a bad person, or haven't thought it through just because your opinions are different to mine: we've both got different opinions, or we've drawn different conclusions, that's all.

Bruce Lawsonbrucelawson # Monday, September 1, 2008 9:12:11 AM

Anonymous wrote

"I think it is wrong for any government entity to require a private enterprise to open up its website to a group of people if the private enterprise chooses not to."

I'm neither a lawyer, nor an American, so I could be very wrong, but I don't see which goverment entity has done any forcing. Target settled; they chose to make their site accessible. (Even if a court had ordered them to, is a court a government entity?)

The law said (I think) that it's illegal to discriminate against a Californian citizen on the basis of disbility. Do you mean that the government shouldn't make that law?

Unregistered user # Monday, September 1, 2008 11:39:25 AM

Jim O'Donnell writes: "(Even if a court had ordered them to, is a court a government entity?)" Going off-topic (sorry) but the judiciary is indeed one branch of the US government. The other two are the legislature and the executive. Although in this case we're talking about a Californian court, which I assume is part of the Californian state government. "A goverment has no right to do anything that the individuals it represents do not have the right to do." This is incorrect. The government has rights and powers which are not held by individual citizens. For example, the government has the right to enforce the law by trying individuals in a court. Individuals may not privately try other individuals. But as Bruce said, Target settled out of court here. I think the only legal opinion offered by a judge was the original opinion that the laws governing a bricks-and-mortar store extend to that store's online presence.

Unregistered user # Tuesday, September 2, 2008 8:39:18 PM

Anonymous writes: The certification tool that NFB uses checks compliance with WCAG standards. Then they do their own functional test with screen reader users. So, some of the results are best practices of their own creation (apparently) but the core testing is against WCAG (not 508 which is the Federal minimum standard).

Unregistered user # Monday, September 15, 2008 2:16:59 PM

Dan writes: Testing vs. WCAG is good. Functional testing is even better. There's no solution for automated functional testing -- you'll need to have people and keyboards using a site to truly determine accessibility. And for the commenter (#29) who disagreed with the requirement of access -- I guess they also disagree with requirements for building access (ramps and elevators), restroom access (height of basins, support bars in stalls), etc.

Unregistered user # Wednesday, September 1, 2010 5:33:35 AM

replica watches writes: A bit off topic possibly, but anyways - which template are you using? I truly love the header style.