[blindlaw] nfb v. target

[Angie Matney]

Joe asked:

>What troubles me is that my question of accessibility standards has not been
>answered on the other case against the LSAC.  The same question is
>applicable here.  What standard was used to conclude that the web site was
>not accessible?  I do not claim to be a genius at manipulating technology to
>serve my needs, but I did not have to try hard at all to make Target give me
>what I needed between 2005 and 2008.  

I can't compare the relative accessibility of the Target site to the LSAC site because I haven't attempted to shop at Target's site. But the LSAC site is inaccessible to every person who uses JAWS as their sole  means of accessing the internet. 
(At least, this was the case when I applied to law schools in the fall of 2005.) Perhaps I overestimate my own abilities, but I feel pretty confident in saying that I can get just about any marginally accessible site to do what I want. But I could not 
apply to law school without the aid of multiple friends who served as readers. In fall, 2005, the application forms used by LSAC were not accessible with JAWS. I believe I was able to enter information into the "general" form, which then 
populated each application form with my personal data. But the specific application forms didn't speak. 

So is the problem the web site layout,
>or is it our own technology training?  Rather than chase every entity with
>features a few people deem inaccessible, would it not be prudent to take our
>standards, whatever those may be, to the classroom, to the software
>developers, the relevant associations raising the performance standards of
>its students and members?  

Possibly. But on the other hand, why should blind people have to be especially proficient computer users to access things like a retail web site? There will always be people who, for whatever reason, do not have the opportunity to receive the 
kind of training you're talking about. There will be others who, regardless of training, possess less intuition about how to operate a screen reader in unfamiliar circumstances. I'm not suggesting that web site developers should assume zero 
training on the part of the end user; but relying on extensive training to guarantee accessibility automatically means some people will be excluded.

This reminds me of an experience I had a few months back. I was flying to Boston to visit a friend, and I wanted to reserve window seats. I was presented with an image map that seemed to give me this opportunity. I thought about how best to 
approach the thing, made an educated guess about what to do, and successfully reserved the seats I wanted. (The gate agent later happily informed me that he'd gone ahead and moved me to bulkhead seating because of my dog. I told him 
I wanted my chosen seat. He refused, claiming regs required him to put me there. Fortunately the flight attendant let me have the seat I'd worked so hard to reserve. I wish I'd filed a formal complaint about that...But I digress.) I later heard a 
blind friend, who is also quite proficient with access technology, characterize what I assume was a similar site (possibly even the same airline site) as inaccessible. I personally don't believe that the fact that I was able to figure this out makes 
the site accessible. A sighted user would not have to work nearly so hard to reserve a seat on a flight.

There will always be some people who are intimidated by the internet in general. These individuals will have trouble accessing the basic features of many web sites. (My dad is one such person, and he's not blind.) But if reasonably proficient 
blind computer users can't access a site, I think it's perfectly reasonable to insist on modifications. We don't want an internet that is only accessible to those of us who have had the most opportunities.

JMO,

Angie