Should Online Stores Be Subject To ADA? 546
prostoalex writes, "HTML tutorials usually mention alt tags for images and noscript tags as something optional that a Web designer should add to a site for the crawlers and users browsing with graphics or JavaScript turned off. However, a recent lawsuit against Target by the National Federation of the Blind accuses the retailer of not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since Target's online store is unbrowsable with a screen reader, the nation's 200,000 blind people who go online cannot become paying customers, the NFB contends. From the article: 'In denying Target's motion to dismiss the suit two months ago, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel... held that the law's accessibility requirements applied to all services offered by a place of public accommodation. Since Target's physical stores are places of public accommodation, the ruling said, its online store must also be accessible or the company must offer equally effective alternatives.' Does the judge's name ring a bell? Yes, it's the same Marilyn Hall Patel who handled the RIAA's case against Napster in 2001." Web builders and tools may need to start brushing up on the Web Accessibility Initiative.
Marilyn Hall Patel... (Score:2, Informative)
Test your Wesbsite (Score:1, Informative)
Needless to say,
Ever been to Target's site? (Score:2, Informative)
I've bought quite a few things at Target's website, and I'm stunned that it's unusable with screen readers. There's little or no dynamic content, and none that couldn't be easily done by showing/hiding DIVs with CSS. Granted it's graphics-intensive, but there are still descriptions of products and other stuff that should make it usable for VI people using screen readers.
So I went to target.com in Lynx, which is our quick and dirty check for SEO and screen reader usability (we do other checks before we finalize designs). And I was stunned I had to hit PGDN 6(!) times before I got through the navigational garbage and got to any of the content on the main page. Target's site is apparently not designed to provide an optimal exprience to anyone outside of someone running IE6/7 on Windows XP and a modern PC. Screen readers, scrapers, search engines, text-only browsers, and mobile users do not appear to be welcome. To boot, in FireFox 1.5 on Linux I was unable to use some of the nav elements because they were hidden behind the Flash content.
Target ought to flog whoever designed their website. If it only works properly in modern IE browsers, then it's alienating maybe 20% of their consumers. More if you consider mobile users and screen readers that can't make use of that terribly designed site.
Re:ADA is bad law (Score:3, Informative)
It is absurdly difficult to accommodate screen readers.
They are undetectable, and cannot be sniffed.
Therefore, you have to assume that potentially anyone coming in can be using a screen reader. You have to program extra code, but not too much extra code, or the screen readers will be reading "spacer" "spacer" "spacer" for three hours. You need to have noscript, and noembed tags in everything, and offer an alternate text version of your site that needs to be up to date and relevant. The law even goes so far as to state that you need to have alternate text on images, or specify the location of a file with a description of the image in it. Style sheets can be against the rules or not, depending on which contradictory section you intend adhering to, and you can pretty much forget about rendering anything on the client side. Although flash can be accessible if you write your code in sequence, make your text selectable, and make sure to specify an alternate text version of your applet (just in case).
It's a frustrating, even maddening standard to work with, especially when your boss won't spring for Jaws (or the like), which he sees no point in doing because no one in your workplace actually needs it.
I wonder if Porn sites could be held to that kind standard...
The entertainment value there would be priceless.
Re:Probably just as well... (Score:3, Informative)
You can assume comparible servers, and GMail will still win every time. In fact, any webmail provider using a "classic" webmail design is likely to show up slower than GMail, even if you assume the same hardware and bandwidth.
The difference is that all that AJAXian voodoo is actually doing something more than making everything look pretty. It's responsible for transferring only the information necessary to update the display. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result, the data transmitted by GMail is significantly less than that transferred by SquirrelMail. SquirrelMail must send you the header, the sidebar, the controls, the CSS, the layout, etc. in addition to the text of the message. GMail sends you the text of the message, then the Javascript code generates the layout on the fly. This reduces latency and improves responsiveness.
So GMail is the perfect example of a situation where using dynamic widgets can improve web performance. That's not to say that plenty of sites don't abuse dynamic components (stupid intros; just let me at 'em!), but those components can be used to improve the experience.
BTW, you get Negative Geek Points for not already knowing how GMail works.
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ADA is bad law (Score:3, Informative)
Welcome to capitalism.
Re:ADA is bad law (Score:3, Informative)
If you keep to standards and don't defecate non-semantic pseudo-HTML from your crutch of a WYSIWYG editor, then it's really easy. Alt tags are required by HTML 4 and XHTML - they're not optional. Non-Javascript alternatives reduce support costs - for instance, you don't have able-bodied twits phoning up, asking why a particular section of their website doesn't work just because they disabled half of the features in their browsers when bored.
Check your website using lynx, or some other excessively simple browser. If the pages are still perfectly navigable and understandable, then you're doing okay. Being unable to write HTML or design websites isn't an excuse.
Re:About Time! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:About Time! (Score:5, Informative)
Try it out for yourselves (Score:2, Informative)
Make sure your using Safari as your browser.
Press command-F5, you will here the computer say "VoiceOver on"
You navigate using the control, option and arrow keys Hold down the control and option keys and then press the arrow keys to move through the controls.
When VoiceOver says "HTML content" press the control-option-shift-down arrow keys to interact with the content.
Now for the real test, control-option-shift-F11 will turn off the screen so you will learn what it is really like to try and navigate with out sight. pressing this command combination again will turn the screen back on.
To get to the menus do command-option-m once for the main menu, twice for the utility menu and three time for the spotlight menu.
Greg Kearney