# Web Designers: Are We Screwed? (Court rules against Target on website accessibility) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2007, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543 "2007-10-04T20:13:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/1 "2007-10-04T20:13:19Z")
[http://www.901am.com/2007/court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility-lawsuit.html](http://www.901am.com/2007/court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility-lawsuit.html) Crap. Does this now mean that Flash is finished? Or just that I’m going to have to make 2 versions of every single site I ever build? ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/2 "2007-10-04T20:19:54Z")
[QUOTE=toadspittle] [http://www.901am.com/2007/court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility-lawsuit.html](http://www.901am.com/2007/court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility-lawsuit.html) Crap. Does this now mean that Flash is finished? Or just that I’m going to have to make 2 versions of every single site I ever build? [/QUOTE] First off, I think that’s a completely lame lawsuit, and I hope it gets challenged. Secondly, why would you need to build 2 different versions of every site you design? Making a site Section 508 compliant is a bit of work, but it’s not _that_ much more work. (The last time I worked on a Section 508 compliant site was back in 2002, though, so maybe things have gotten a bit more strict or something.) LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/3 "2007-10-04T20:25:32Z")
In the opinion of many, if you’re developing flash-only sites, you were already screwed anyway, for other reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ad7895/32.png) [@Just\_Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/4 "2007-10-04T20:26:10Z")
[QUOTE=toadspittle] Crap. Does this now mean that Flash is finished? [/QUOTE] I can only hope. If I never see a Flash intro or navigation or layout again then it’s worth it. I suspect this one is going to go to the Supreme Court just because it is such a muddy issue so you might yet have a reprieve. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/5 "2007-10-04T20:31:22Z")
I don’t see how this decision screws web designers at all. If anything, it’s a windfall, as a whole lot of companies are going to be looking to hire web designers to make their cites compliant with the law. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/6 "2007-10-04T20:34:34Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] In the opinion of many, if you’re developing flash-only sites, you were already screwed anyway, for other reasons. [/QUOTE] Thank you for that! ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/7 "2007-10-04T20:47:22Z")
It really, really adds a lot more work for the web design/web developer interface. I do my best to get double-A, but damn it’s hard work when your developers aren’t familiar with it… ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/8 "2007-10-04T21:20:11Z")
All well and good, but Flash is, frankly, just about the most versatile way to serve up slideshows of images (an enormous part of my business). But it’s not alt-tag compliant. Yes, there are AJAX options, but they aren’t yet as versatile or as plug-and-play as a SWF. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/9 "2007-10-04T21:29:14Z")
I know very little about Web design and terminology, so forgive me any errors. Personally speaking, when I encounter a flash-only site, one that doesn’t let me click around, enter URLs to specific content directly, select/copy, etc., like regular HTML, my first thought is “Do I really need to be visiting this site or do I have something better to do?” And when it comes to images, I’d rather be given the choice to click on an image to view rather than being presented with a slide show. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2007, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/10 "2007-10-04T23:07:46Z")
I agree - I’ve been using StumbleUpon a fair bit lately (as well as some other social bookmarking stuff) and it’s got so that if I arrive at a site and see just a blank screen with a little ‘loading’ progress bar - indicating that it’s a flash-only site, and the content is significant in size/complexity - I click away before it gets there. Am I missing something lovely? Quite possibly. I don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/11 "2007-10-05T00:51:30Z")
Questions for anyone in the know. How do you make a visual site on a computer compliant to the blind. And also, can you tell me if the law firms listed (Disability Rights Advocates; Brown, Goldstein & Levy; Schneider & Wallace; and Peter Blanck} are compliant. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/12 "2007-10-05T01:34:03Z")
The decision (the legal aspect of which were reviewed by me in the [Blind can’t see Target](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=438896) thread), doesn’t have any implications at all for any web service that isn’t linked to a “brick and mortar” store or other public accommodation. It is the fact that [Target.com](http://Target.com) is part of Target stores that potentially subjects them to liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/13 "2007-10-05T01:36:09Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Questions for anyone in the know. How do you make a visual site on a computer compliant to the blind. And also, can you tell me if the law firms listed (Disability Rights Advocates; Brown, Goldstein & Levy; Schneider & Wallace; and Peter Blanck} are compliant. [/QUOTE] It’s mostly a matter of so-calld \ tags, code imbedded in the site which allows certain software programs to know what to do with it for the blind. Usually, the point is to allow the programs to convert the text into speech, or to have a spoken description of a graphic, such as a picture. Other possibilities include spoken directions for how to navigate the site, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/14 "2007-10-05T01:39:29Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] It’s mostly a matter of so-calld \ tags, code imbedded in the site which allows certain software programs to know what to do with it for the blind. Usually, the point is to allow the programs to convert the text into speech, or to have a spoken description of a graphic, such as a picture. Other possibilities include spoken directions for how to navigate the site, etc. [/QUOTE] Thanks, I saw your response in the other thread but I didn’t understand what a blind person could gain from a visual website. I can’t imagine how it could be made useful in a legal sense. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/15 "2007-10-05T02:48:14Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Thanks, I saw your response in the other thread but I didn’t understand what a blind person could gain from a visual website. I can’t imagine how it could be made useful in a legal sense. [/QUOTE] Web designers aren’t screwed at all. Flash designers are, though. Suit or no suit, why would anyone even consider making a Flash-only site? You can’t bookmark pages in the middle, the browser’s back and forward buttons are disabled, it slows down processing, it’s not alt-tag compliant, it won’t work with voice-nav programs, it won’t work with screen readers… Basically, Flash changes the whole user experience to something that’s just not the Web anymore. Of course, my comments don’t apply to Flash for non-navigational extra content on a page. It is wonderful for animated illustrations on science sites and the like, and I’ve built a couple of cool tutorial aids with it. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/16 "2007-10-05T02:58:45Z")
[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat] Of course, my comments don’t apply to Flash for non-navigational extra content on a page. It is wonderful for animated illustrations on science sites and the like, and I’ve built a couple of cool tutorial aids with it. [/QUOTE] Your comments may not apply, but the ruling does. I’d wager that content you think is “wonderful” is non-ADA compliant. At the risk of exposing my off-Dope life too much, let me share a [site my firm built.](http://clarkecatonhintz.com/project_84/) That multi-image slideshow on the right (still rudimentary, since the client wanted no transitions, etc., between pictures) is Flash. Not too obtrusive, eh? Unfortunately it would be illegal per the current ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/17 "2007-10-05T03:09:05Z")
[QUOTE=toadspittle] Your comments may not apply, but the ruling does. I’d wager that content you think is “wonderful” is non-ADA compliant. [/QUOTE] I disagree. If you create a Flash animation that shows how a Wankel engine works and place a text caption under it that says “Animation showing how a Wankel engine works,” you’d be compliant. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/18 "2007-10-05T03:36:05Z")
If the court rules against Target (and I hope they do), it does not mean the end for Flash-enabled pages and web sites. Any competent web developer can easily make a web site accessible under [WCAG 1.0](http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/) (or even [Section 508](http://www.webaim.org/standards/508/checklist.php) if the court decides to use that standard). Also, it is more that just ALT attributes. I fail to understand the technical fear. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/19 "2007-10-05T08:06:06Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Questions for anyone in the know. How do you make a visual site on a computer compliant to the blind. [/QUOTE] Obviously there are some kinds of content that just _can’t_ be rendered any other way than visually - a lot of Flash games are like this - for example, can you imagine trying to provide the means for in-game narration of [Boomshine](http://www.bored.com/boomshine/)? So it’s a problem where only some solutions are possible, sometimes. I’m not sure how you can legislate for that (IANAL of course) - it seems to me that essential things like government sites dealing with tax issues, public and private news sites - stuff like that - can be expected to be trying their best. Others, not so much. Although of course it makes sense to be accessible to as many users as reasonably possible - and this tenet should be somewhere in the top ten priorities of web designers, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2007, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543/20 "2007-10-05T12:36:02Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Although of course it makes sense to be accessible to as many users as reasonably possible - and this tenet should be somewhere in the top ten priorities of web designers, IMO. [/QUOTE] There, in a nutshell, is my philosophy on Web design. I’ve spoken to companies who’ve made the decision to support only IE, because it represents 90% of the viewers on their site. WHY would a business intentionally block access to 10% of their potential customers? Do they really think Mac owners are going to buy a new computer\* to view it? I know–you can carry such things to extremes. Does anyone actually go out of their way to support Lynx anymore? But it’s really quite simple to create a solid functional template for the site that works on every platform out there. Not doing so just seems lazy to me. - Getting IE for the Mac isn’t an option anymore. It just doesn’t work. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/web-designers-are-we-screwed-court-rules-against-target-on-website-accessibility/421543.md?page=2)