Because it was explicitly designed to be accessible. And because it is relatively easy and the incremental cost is small. As it happens, a Braille version of a publication is one of the least useful things you can do. In the UK only 2% of registered blind people read Braille. However, many have a scanner that allows them to read printed material using OCR and a text-to-speech converter. The most useful alternatives are large-print versions and audio recordings, and many organisations will make their publications available in these formats on request. Have you actually looked at the coding on the Target website? I have, many times. The accessibility (and standards-compliance) could be improved dramatically at virtually no cost. One of the biggest problems is that nearly all the links are graphical but no 'alt' attributes have been provided. You try to navigate when JAWS reads "link graphic six hundred twenty five million three hundred forty two thousand seven hundred ninety one". Where does that link point to? Damned if I know. And each page contains several hundred links like it. The secondary navigation might look like text but it isn't - it's a honking great image map. Want to resize the text? Sorry, can't do that. Semantic structure? Ha ha ha... You could understand if they just came out and said "screw disabled people - we don't care", but instead they give us this garbage about how it's as accessible as possible and it meets all the guidelines and they really do care ever so much. They are not claiming the right to 'do whatever the hell they want' - they are trying to kid people that this is as good as it gets and that it can't be any better. And that is just so far from the truth. Steve
_____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson Sent: 03 October 2007 23:01 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: A: [WSG] Target Lawsuit - Please Make Yourself Heard Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require all publications to include a braille copy, all musical artists to provide a written transcript of ever performance. That would of course be madness... Why should a different standard be applied to the web? On 10/3/07, russ - maxdesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I can only assume this is an attempt at trolling... Either that or phrases like "the web is for everyone" has fallen on deaf ears. Luckily, there are laws in many countries to stop companies and agencies "doing whatever the hell the like" when it comes to website and accessibility. Russ > > A private company should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Suit is > without merit and frivolous. What's next, suing vehicle manufacturers for not > providing a braille manual? I'm all for accesability, but there is no reason > it should be mandated, and lack of is in no was discriminatory. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
