Target Website Accessibility $6 million Settlement

E-commerce for the blind: Target Website Accessibility $6 million Settlement

 

It's good business -- and it's the law -- for companies to make their websites fully accessible to the visually impaired.

August 30, 2008

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires "public accommodations"

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm  to be accessible to the disabled as well as the able-bodied. That's why stores, government buildings and churches have elevators and ramps, not just stairs. But when the National Federation of the Blind urged retail giant Target Corp. three years ago to modify its website to aid the visually impaired, Target balked. The disabilities act applied to its brick-and-mortar stores, not its branch in cyberspace, Target's lawyers argued.

 

And so began a legal battle that ended Wednesday, when Target announced that it would pay $6 million to settle http://www.dralegal.org/downloads/cases/target/Final-Agreement.pdf   a class-action lawsuit by blind shoppers who'd struggled to use its website.

Target also has agreed to change the site in ways suggested by the federation, making Target.com fully accessible to the blind by the beginning of March 2009. Most significantly, perhaps, a federal judge's pretrial rulings http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=8539 in the case held that the disabilities act and California law did apply to the online counterparts of physical stores and services.

 

As is so often true, Target will end up spending a lot more to modify its site than it would have spent to design it to be accessible from Day One.

There's plenty of help online http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for companies trying meet the needs of the disabled. The World Wide Web Consortium, a group that develops voluntary standards for the Web, has been publishing accessibility guidelines http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/ for almost a decade, including to help designers make their sites work with the specialized equipment used by the disabled. The blind rely on expensive software that reads aloud the contents of each Web page, so images and forms on the pages must include some identifying text. They also can't navigate with a mouse -- try using one with your eyes closed -- so pages need to be designed for navigating with a keyboard. That's not much to ask.

 

The problem is that, like Target, too many companies didn't focus on accessibility when they made the leap into e-commerce. If they had, they would have found an underserved audience of disabled shoppers. A website can be a far more inviting place for a blind person than a crowded mall, if the site is designed the right way. And the number of vision-impaired Americans (at least 1.3 million  http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15%23num

are legally blind) is expected to grow as the population ages and the incidence of diabetes http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/06/25/diabetes.rates.ap/index.htm

l  climbs. With more commerce and services moving to the Internet, it's increasingly important that companies make accessibility a part of everything they do online. If that's not clear in federal law, it should be.

And although Target may have needed a push to embrace the disabled, at least it's showing the rest of the retail world how it's done.

Republicans help the rich, Democrats help the rest of us! Proven using census data post WW2

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?em
Economic View
Is History Siding With Obama's Economic Plan?
By ALAN S. BLINDER
Published: August 30, 2008

 

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at
Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has
advised many Democratic politicians.

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of
Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts
for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class.
The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other
topics.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
David G. Klein

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have
followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have
been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton
versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences
between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts
about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly
delineated in a new book, "Unequal Democracy," by Larry M. Bartels, a
professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might
help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in
November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put,
the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under
Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary
Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is
extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to
2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years
and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross
national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican
presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield
9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost
anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two
parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage
over the nation's economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal
Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far
more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund
prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of
future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are
stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great
Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels's work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been
on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that
has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels
unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year
period, income inequality trended substantially upward under
Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus
accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for
America's poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven
elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To
get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar
history of income gains at five different places in the income
distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all
families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a
plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly,
the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the
families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the
60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best
dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted
Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well
below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for
defining the rich. It's closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a
remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the
White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income
growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were
equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth
for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus
widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost
as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent
growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake,
economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for
the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse
under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64
percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent
increases a family's income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of
growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated
story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years —
the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great
Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a
high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are
smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We
know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax
cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In
addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage,
and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is
a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic
growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to
slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama
menu don't you like?

 

 

Flawless Moral Character- at 44 McCain left his wife to marry a 26-year-old really rich gal

Mom, I know you’d be interested in reading this one…

 

“When John McCain left his first wife in 1980 to marry the wealthy and glamorous Cindy Hensley, he used his newfound riches to provide his discarded bride a life of relative comfort. Carol McCain, who has not remarried, continues to cheer on her former husband from afar.”

http://www.citypages.com/2008-09-03/news/tim-pawlenty-jilted-for-sarah-palin/

 

That means 28 years ago when McCain was 44 he left his wife Carol who faithfully waited for him for years while he was in a prison camp, and married a 26-year-old really rich gal almost half his age. (who could help fund his campaign’s maybe?)  The article discusses how McCain did the same to Governor Palenty with Palin as he did to his first wife, but without a big check to live on.

 

Now there’s typical celebrity of flawless moral character.  Far better than the 50% black family man with an African immigrant father who has spent most of his granted much shorter political career working to help the working class people in southern Chicago.

 

     

 

RE: The future versus the past, fear, and Mark Warner's speech

Mom,

 

Before today I had not made a decision except to defeat what I felt were fears of the unknown.  So to hold true to my own emphasis on researching anything sufficiently to obtain something closer to the truth, I spent the afternoon watching what our presidential candidates had to say about themselves, America, the economy, health care, our military, and each other.  I no longer have many questions remaining in my mind.  However, don’t take my word for anything.  I’m nobody – just a staunchly independent man.  Please, research and make up your own mind.  Here’s a brief curriculum to speed you along although there will be plenty of diversions along the way.

---------------------------

First a piece of history…  The truth about what was said

Barrac Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention, Keynote Address

http://media.libsyn.com/media/barackobama/obama_2004_dnc_med.wmv

 

Next, an introduction to reality, our current state of affairs.

Mark Warner, 2008 Democratic National Convention, Keynote Address

http://www.markwarner2008.com/pages/watch-the-speech

 

But don’t make any decision without getting V. complete story, without looking at both sides of any debate or argument!  If there is one fundamental rule I live by it is this.

John McCain’s website campaign videos
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/MultiMedia/Default.aspx

 

When I went to his website, I truly had much more hope for John McCain.  He’s a great man, a brave man with courage and military experience, and I believe would truly be a great Commander-In-Chief  of the military.  However America needs much more than military leader, much more than borrowing $10 billion to fund operations in Iraq every month when the Iraqi government has a $79 billion surplus!  We need a plan, to answers to hard questions rather than “Yes I believe in [fill in the blank]”!  We need much more of a military leader - there is a reason generals have earned their stars.  I think we are safe and deferring to their better judgment and an elected leader who will represent recognizes that, rather than depending on someone who thinks they know better.  We’ve had enough experience with that.  We require more than bravery and courage in oneself, we require the bravery and courage to guide and lead - to trust in others.  We require someone who recognizes an election is not about them, but about everyone casting ballots!

Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech
 http://www.barackobama.com/tv/

 

We are all rightfully afraid of the unknown.  Its program within us from the time of our birth.  There is nothing like the fear of change that holds people back yet there is nothing like the promise of change that gives us hope and immeasurable drive to bring it about!  However, fueling fear has results in little measurable success other than maintaining power over the fearful.  We live in a world full of dangers, dangers that must be addressed, but if crippled by our fear we will never succeed or move forward! 

 

Any sound decision requires truth.  Obtain it for yourself from multiple sources!  Don’t believe hearsay or simply what someone tells you.  Don’t believe me.  Every mother tell their child “Actions Speak Louder Than Words!”  Without more information I don’t know whether these items define truth or response, but I do respect that they have not been returned!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/christian

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/behindthesmears

 

We are a society that has been built on the industrious motivation and backs of our immigrant ancestors.  My great x5 grandfather settled in central Minnesota and traded with, prospered in collaboration with, and was respected by, local Native Americans when others nearby feared them.  Uncontrolled immigration is not helpful, but neither is a month or separated from her infant child, or people working under unfit conditions because the alternative is far worse.  In a positive manner, let us once more return to being the land of the free, home of the brave, were all men are created equal and have the opportunity of the pursuit of happiness while contributing to that of their neighbor.  Let us throw off the burden of fear and with courage embrace the change, possibility, opportunities that come with each.

Your loving son, with as you know and sometimes criticized with affection, far too much of a mind of his own,

Mark Felling
Quadriplegic Engineer, Inventor, MBA

 

PS:  For anyone who dares declare me insufficiently supportive of our military and the far too young men and women serving within it, I challenge you to talk to a few of my customers who have given and lost more of their physical abilities than many people believe they would be able to endure - including myself at one time.  I challenge you to spend even one day “walking” in our shoes.

 

 

 

From: Mark Felling [mailto:Mark@Felling.US]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 1:21 PM
To: 'Darlene Felling'
Cc: mfelling.blog@blogger.com; Jim Felling (jim.felling@gmail.com); Greg Felling (gregfelling22@yahoo.com); bluehu12@hotmail.com; Ben Felling (bigbenfelling@hotmail.com); Bill Dennis (bjdennis.2@juno.com); rpeltier1@juno.com; eggert_scott@hotmail.com; Cory Spanier (cmspanier@yahoo.com)
Subject: The future versus the past, fear, and Mark Warner's speech

 

Mom,

 

Yesterday we briefly discussed a bit of politics. I wasn’t quite sure how to articulate my thoughts in a way you wouldn’t find contradictory or emblazoned against. I want to emphasize to you to not let fear of the unknown sway your judgment.  That is of course how Bush led us into Iraq.  Convincing everyone of ”weapons of mass destruction” which simply did not exist except in his his own mind.  By implementing the terror threat index that never gets below orange.  It led to denying hope for new technologies and healthcare involving stem cell research and other areas out of fear of the unknown.  Teaching/Preaching fear is characteristic of dictators to maintain power through it. 

 

Fear of change has often been cited as the greatest force and restriction on people’s freedom.  It touches all levels from restricting your thinking to actions.  People have demonstrated they will even choose to stick with a horrible government like The Soviet Socialist Republic, Stalin, the hardliners of Iran, the current North Korean government, and even the Nazis and other various dictators through history out of fear of the unknown.  Somehow people always believe it could be worse and it’s safer to stick with what is known - to stick with the past.  You really need to watch this speech.  It is one of the best I’ve seen or heard in a long time.

 

http://www.markwarner2008.com/pages/watch-the-speech

 

Mark Warner does a great job of breaking things down to the fundamentals.  The future versus the past, moving forward versus being stuck in the mud, fear of the past versus hope for the future.  Understanding the new dynamics of the global economy in which social change is inevitable as people are able to move about the world far more freely.

 

I haven’t made up my decision yet, but I’m listening and reading.  I’m about ideas and the people who lead by them, not parties, not hype reported by self-identified experts. I’m not asking for a decision one way or the other, only to open your mind, listen to what is said with an open mind not limited by fear, and consider all the possibilities before making a decision that doesn’t need to be made for some time!

 

 

The future versus the past, fear, and Mark Warner's speech

Mom,

 

Yesterday we briefly discussed a bit of politics. I wasn’t quite sure how to articulate my thoughts in a way you wouldn’t find contradictory or emblazoned against. I want to emphasize to you to not let fear of the unknown sway your judgment.  That is of course how Bush led us into Iraq.  Convincing everyone of ”weapons of mass destruction” which simply did not exist except in his his own mind.  By implementing the terror threat index that never gets below orange.  It led to denying hope for new technologies and healthcare involving stem cell research and other areas out of fear of the unknown.  Teaching/Preaching fear is characteristic of dictators to maintain power through it. 

 

Fear of change has often been cited as the greatest force and restriction on people’s freedom.  It touches all levels from restricting your thinking to actions.  People have demonstrated they will even choose to stick with a horrible government like The Soviet Socialist Republic, Stalin, the hardliners of Iran, the current North Korean government, and even the Nazis and other various dictators through history out of fear of the unknown.  Somehow people always believe it could be worse and it’s safer to stick with what is known - to stick with the past.  You really need to watch this speech.  It is one of the best I’ve seen or heard in a long time.

 

http://www.markwarner2008.com/pages/watch-the-speech

 

Mark Warner does a great job of breaking things down to the fundamentals.  The future versus the past, moving forward versus being stuck in the mud, fear of the past versus hope for the future.  Understanding the new dynamics of the global economy in which social change is inevitable as people are able to move about the world far more freely.

 

I haven’t made up my decision yet, but I’m listening and reading.  I’m about ideas and the people who lead by them, not parties, not hype reported by self-identified experts. I’m not asking for a decision one way or the other, only to open your mind, listen to what is said with an open mind not limited by fear, and consider all the possibilities before making a decision that doesn’t need to be made for some time!