> 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.
Your analogy makes no sense, unless you think the state should be required to grant a drivers license to Ray Charles. OTOH, vehicle manufacturers are required to follow various safety regulations, the purpose of which is not so much to protect the idiot driver from his own incompetence and stupidity, but to protect innocent people from the occasional incompetent and stupid driver. The Target lawsuit is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to Wikipedia, Title III of ADA says, "no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things." In other words, it's illegal to discriminate against 20 percent of the US population (that's 60 million people) who have some sort of disability preventing them from enjoying public accommodation as anyone else. The lawsuit is arguing that public accommodation also applies to private (commercial) web sites, in addition to brick and mortar operations. If you truly are for accessibility, I'm sure you don't complain about the wheelchair ramps at crosswalks, the disability buttons at building entrances, and the extra-large private toilet blocks everywhere else, to name just a few. None of these features negatively impact the able-bodied person one bit. On the contrary, wheelchair ramps at crosswalks are seen to have hidden benefits for non-disabled people as well. All require considerable sums of money to install and maintain. Yet applying that same standard to web sites is not applicable here? Disability does not mean seclusion. In fact, disabled people wield considerable consumer buying power on their own, let alone influence others and their consumer spending. Or, put it this way. Considering Mac users account for a single digit percentage of all computers connected to the Internet, why even cater to them, let alone acknowledge their existence? If you believe that then here's hoping your life insurance is fully paid up. Mac influence with respect to the Internet, if not the greater world, is greatly disproportionate to their numbers, practically all of it for the better of all of us. Or do you firmly believe Zune beats iPod hands down? :) Web accessibility is not an addon issue. Web accessibility is not an additional expense. Web accessibility makes good business sense. Most importantly, web accessibility is the right thing to do. And the final twist is that everyone, *everyone,* who uses the Internet for whatever reason, will someday require accessible assistance when it comes to using the Internet. Dennis Lapcewich USDA Forest Service Webmaster Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360-891-5024 - Voice | 360-891-5045 - Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -- Anonymous ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
