Target had to pay big dollars for a major usability issues on their website today, poor accessibility. The website, Target.com, was not friendly to visitors that are blind, and they became target #1 for National Federation of the Blind, (NFB).
It is our sincere hope that other businesses providing goods and services over the Internet will follow Target’s example and take affirmative steps to provide full access to their Web sites by blind consumers. NFB Press Release
According to the press release about this, Target.com has been working on the accessibility issue already, and continues to. I guess Target can now calculate not the ROI, but the ROSI, return on settlement, and then investment. They donate as much as three million weekly to charitable causes, so maybe they could just not donate a few weeks, and really give their site a punch.
event entertainment (2)
proflight simulat... (1)
wow.. i know that certain laws and regulations are in place in the UK and US but didn’t realise online businesses DID really get charged..
From http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com: ” Target shall make a first payment of fifty thousand (50,000) dollars within one (1) month of the Finality Date. Target shall make a payment of forty thousand (40,000) dollars each year thereafter, within twelve (12) months of the previous payment, through the Term of the Agreement.”
Hopefully this will be a wake up call for online business to start taking accessibility issues more seriously.
I realize there is an irritating movement to make usability and accessibility synonymous, but the title of your article is misleading. Target’s problem is accessibility, not usability. Even if you’re among those desperately trying to tie the 2 together, the techniques to improve each are totally different (for 95% of your users).
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comment. I see what you mean. It’s not my intention to make usability synonymous with accessibility, but accessibility is certainly a major usability issue.
Michael,
I just wanted to say thank you again. I changed the title, and the wording a little bit. So for those of you reading Michaels first comment, the reference he made to the title used to make sense.