In a major victory for disabled-rights activists, federal judge Marilyn Hall Patel has ruled that the National Federation of the Blind can go to trial against the Target Corp. on charges that its online shopping website should be redesigned to make it easier for blind computer users to use. (Bloomberg, Reuters).
We’ve covered the Target suit Feb. 8 (with enormous reader discussion), Oct. 4 and Oct. 27 of last year. Existing federal court precedent, in the Southwest Airlines case, discourages the most far-reaching demands for web “accessibility”; the Target case, which is being heard before a judge who’s considered relatively liberal, is important because disabled-rights activists hope to use it to counter and eventually reverse the Southwest precedent (see Jan. 8, 2004). For reasons why a victory by the activists might lead to unprecedented infringements on the freedom to conduct business or even publish online, see my May 2000 Reason column and my House testimony of earlier that year, and earlier posts on this site (& welcome Michelle Malkin readers).
One Comment
This ruling will have a chilling effect on many aspects of new technical developments.
I have developed numerous web sites including many providing services (such as public sector sites). I agree that it is right and proper to require accessibility for these sites.
I do not, however believe that there is an demonstrable RIGHT to allow access to a sight which is totally voluntary – such as a retail site.
I also think that new technical advancements such as ‘virtual world’ technologies and various interactive ‘web 2.0’ techniques are not readily accessible to current disabled access technologies like ‘screen readers’. A ruling that requires access for all based on the current state of assistive technology will mean NO ONE gets to use them and will, in effect shut down the evolution of the web.
This is judicial activism at it’s worse!