http://www.cio.com/article/739512/H...bility_Before_the_Government_Forces_Your_Hand This article caught my eye, because certain users (I'm looking at you, deathshadow) talk a lot about accessibility. Basically, this article talks about the push to force website accessibility on major websites. Target already had to pay six million from a lawsuit. Please excuse me while I level AA my website.
It's a horrendous lawsuit that was probably settled in order to make the complaints of the blind go away for PR reasons. Target just had a website that didn't have sufficient alt tags. Fire the SEO. You're never going to have to face this issue unless you have a TON of money to pay out to the disabled and their lawyers whose bills mean Fortune company or the lawsuit will never happen. BTW that's an old settlement.
If I was target, I would just shut down the website as soon as the complaints were made. While I agree that accessibility is important, the fact is that the website as it is would have been providing a valuable service. To then sue someone for $6million for providing that service, simply as you dont like the service they are providing to you, is ridiculous. Its almost like me suing a site that is in spanish simply as I dont speak spanish, I mean, how dare a website not be tailored specifically to my personal needs. The next thing that this brings to mind is that what if a company doesnt have a website. Are they liable for not being friendly to the needs of the blind? See if you read that article target was sued for "$6 million in damages" -> what damages can you possibly have by not having a site that is user friendly? So based on that if they didnt have a website at all, and therefore clearly not having a site that is accessible, could they still be sued for "6 million in damages" even for not having a website?