In my daily news crawl, I stumbled upon this gem of a turd...
From CNet: Blind patrons sue Target for site inaccessibility
[Bruce] Sexton, along with a blind advocacy group, filed a class action lawsuit this week against Target, alleging that the retail giant's Web site is inaccessible to the blind and thus violates a California law that incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit, filed in Northern California's Alameda County Superior Court by Sexton and the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind (NFB), claims that Target.com, "contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for blind customers to use."
...
"A blind patron cannot purchase anything at Target.com without sighted help," Basrawi said, adding that Target.com is just one prominent example of many corporate sites that fail to meet minimum Web accessibility standards. "This is the tip of the iceberg."
I apologize to those of you who are disabled in one fashion or another, but this is simply wrong. I can understand the frustrations because my dad has been nearly deaf his entire life. He won't claim it as a disability, but it certainly is. But the great thing about him, is that he doesn't sue a retailer because they don't provide people who know sign language (which is good because he doesn't know it either).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted to ensure that handicapped individuals are given every reasonable concession by brick-and-mortar retailers and government installations so that they may live and function independently. For instance, this law was enacted to afford wheelchair-bound individuals the right that when they enter the grocery store, they will be able to purchase the items they need on their own and that, if the need arises, they'll be able to use their restroom facilities. This only makes sense. Yes, when it was first enacted it cost a great deal of money to upgrade existing installations, but almost all new buildings since have been built ADA-compliant.
But outside of government-run websites, this law
SHOULD NOT carry over onto the web. Just because Target.com is not accessible doesn't prevent Bruce Sexton from being able to live independently. Just because he
chooses to shop online doesn't mean that is his only option.
We've heard the term "slippery slope" all too often these days, but this is yet another example. If all e-commerce sites were forced to be ADA-compliant, there would be no Flickr, no Digg, virtually no site that makes gratuitous use of JavaScript and CSS. Any "creative" web application using AJAX or Flash would immediately be thrown to the dogs who call themselves lawyers.
It is laws like these that unnecessarily impede progress and creativity. The added cost of making "alternatively-accessible" copies of a small business' site could either force them to stay off the web completely or ultimately prevent them from offering their more creative services. Web developers must give special attention to this lawsuit because this could change our jobs and lives for the worse.