Flash sites and pages that resize/open/otherwise fuck with my windows get closed immediately and cursed out.
Really, whose bright idea was it to put Hypercard on the Web?
I did not see, but do those people have a brick and mortar operation? Unless they do, the Target case is irrelevant to them.
The company in question is a web services company. If they are unable to create/build accessible web sites, especially id Target loses, market forces will drive them out of business.
You are missing the point. The Target suit only addresses what companies have to do if they also have brick and mortar operations. If they don’t, then the Target suit is not relevant to them (at least, not in the Ninth Circuit). Target’s liability in that lawsuit is based upon the fact that, as a brick and mortar operation, they are required under ADA to do certain things.
So, in the case of the company in question, the Target case is not in any way relevant to them whatsoever.
Legally it’s irrelevant to them. However, if the Target case causes a big drop in demand for Flash web design, the web design company is in trouble.
Why? Can’t this company do traditional Web design? Don’t they know how to work with images, HTML, CSS, PHP, and all of the other tools of the Web?
If they do nothing but Flash, then I’m sorry but they aren’t a Web design company.
Well, that was Duckster’s original point. If they can’t do this well then they could be in trouble.