E-mail List Archives
Thread: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
Number of posts in this thread: 11 (In chronological order)
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 8:40AM
Subject: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
No previous message | Next message →
All,
This is great news!!!!
http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com/final_settlement.htm
Mike Burks
919 870 8788 - Office
919-882-1884 - Fax
703-254-3881 - Cell
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jukka K. Korpela
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:56 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] using ABBR for headers in tables
Brid Deely wrote:
> I would just like to ask for feedback on using the abbr tag in table
> headers.
Just don't use the abbr tag. It helps, at most, a very small fraction of
users. It may hurt many, and most importantly it makes you think you have
explained an abbreviation when you haven't.
> Also do you have any recommendations about how it should be used,
> e.g. only for longer headers?
Huh? Do you actually mean the abbr _attribute_, not the abbr _tag_? There's
a big difference.
Here you have an abbr tag:
<abbr title="Useless Initialism">UI</abbr>
which could be used inside a table header or elsewhere. Just don't.
Here you have an abbr attribute:
<th abbr="predicted">Predicted outcome in 2009"></th>
I think the idea is pretty simple, and useful (though not as useful as it
could with wider support):
1) Use it whenever the table header would be too long when pronounced while
reading a large number of cells, speaking first the row and column header
and then the cell content.
2) The abbr value should be short and understandable in the context of the
table, assuming that the user has access to the full header texts (and an
eventual caption for the table).
3) The name of the attribute is really a misnomer. The value need not be an
abbreviation of the content, i.e. something you get by omitting something
from it; it can be just any short expression that serves the purpose of
identifying a column or a row in the context of a table. Typically, however,
it's a word or a few words (not abbreviations!) extracted from the full
content of the cell.
Yucca
From: Wendy Chisholm
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 9:00AM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
Target has agreed to meet the "Target Online Assistive Technology
Guidelines ... attached as Exhibit C." I'm not finding them. Anyone
else? I'd like to see how they compare to Section 508, WCAG 1.0 and
WCAG 2.0.
Thanks,
--wendy
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Michael R. Burks
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> All,
>
> This is great news!!!!
>
> http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com/final_settlement.htm
>
> Mike Burks
>
> 919 870 8788 - Office
>
> 919-882-1884 - Fax
>
> 703-254-3881 - Cell
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jukka K. Korpela
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:56 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] using ABBR for headers in tables
>
> Brid Deely wrote:
>
>> I would just like to ask for feedback on using the abbr tag in table
>> headers.
>
> Just don't use the abbr tag. It helps, at most, a very small fraction of
> users. It may hurt many, and most importantly it makes you think you have
> explained an abbreviation when you haven't.
>
>> Also do you have any recommendations about how it should be used,
>> e.g. only for longer headers?
>
> Huh? Do you actually mean the abbr _attribute_, not the abbr _tag_? There's
> a big difference.
>
> Here you have an abbr tag:
>
> <abbr title="Useless Initialism">UI</abbr>
>
> which could be used inside a table header or elsewhere. Just don't.
>
> Here you have an abbr attribute:
>
> <th abbr="predicted">Predicted outcome in 2009"></th>
>
> I think the idea is pretty simple, and useful (though not as useful as it
> could with wider support):
>
> 1) Use it whenever the table header would be too long when pronounced while
> reading a large number of cells, speaking first the row and column header
> and then the cell content.
>
> 2) The abbr value should be short and understandable in the context of the
> table, assuming that the user has access to the full header texts (and an
> eventual caption for the table).
>
> 3) The name of the attribute is really a misnomer. The value need not be an
> abbreviation of the content, i.e. something you get by omitting something
> from it; it can be just any short expression that serves the purpose of
> identifying a column or a row in the context of a table. Typically, however,
>
> it's a word or a few words (not abbreviations!) extracted from the full
> content of the cell.
>
> Yucca
>
>
From: Moore, Michael
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 9:10AM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
My read is that they are only agreeing to make the site compatible with
screen readers. No mention of which screen readers, no mention of
compliance with any recognized standards, no mention of other assistive
technologies or even keyboard access without a screen reader.
They also are not admitting to any wrongdoing. The $6M settlement is
barely a slap on the wrist for a company with $59 billion in revenue
last year.
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Wendy
Chisholm
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:53 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Target and NFB agree to Settlment
Target has agreed to meet the "Target Online Assistive Technology
Guidelines ... attached as Exhibit C." I'm not finding them. Anyone
else? I'd like to see how they compare to Section 508, WCAG 1.0 and
WCAG 2.0.
Thanks,
--wendy
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Michael R. Burks
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> All,
>
> This is great news!!!!
>
> http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com/final_settlement.htm
>
> Mike Burks
>
> 919 870 8788 - Office
>
> 919-882-1884 - Fax
>
> 703-254-3881 - Cell
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jukka K.
Korpela
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:56 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] using ABBR for headers in tables
>
> Brid Deely wrote:
>
>> I would just like to ask for feedback on using the abbr tag in table
>> headers.
>
> Just don't use the abbr tag. It helps, at most, a very small fraction
of
> users. It may hurt many, and most importantly it makes you think you
have
> explained an abbreviation when you haven't.
>
>> Also do you have any recommendations about how it should be used,
>> e.g. only for longer headers?
>
> Huh? Do you actually mean the abbr _attribute_, not the abbr _tag_?
There's
> a big difference.
>
> Here you have an abbr tag:
>
> <abbr title="Useless Initialism">UI</abbr>
>
> which could be used inside a table header or elsewhere. Just don't.
>
> Here you have an abbr attribute:
>
> <th abbr="predicted">Predicted outcome in 2009"></th>
>
> I think the idea is pretty simple, and useful (though not as useful as
it
> could with wider support):
>
> 1) Use it whenever the table header would be too long when pronounced
while
> reading a large number of cells, speaking first the row and column
header
> and then the cell content.
>
> 2) The abbr value should be short and understandable in the context of
the
> table, assuming that the user has access to the full header texts (and
an
> eventual caption for the table).
>
> 3) The name of the attribute is really a misnomer. The value need not
be an
> abbreviation of the content, i.e. something you get by omitting
something
> from it; it can be just any short expression that serves the purpose
of
> identifying a column or a row in the context of a table. Typically,
however,
>
> it's a word or a few words (not abbreviations!) extracted from the
full
> content of the cell.
>
> Yucca
>
>
From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 9:20AM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Michael R. Burks
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> All,
>
> This is great news!!!!
>
> http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com/final_settlement.htm
Is it really? It's good news for the NFB, its claimants, and Jim
Thatcher (in the sum of $6 million+), but I think the majority of the
accessibility community was hoping for some long-awaited case law that
might better define the relationship of the Internet and the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Instead of all corporations receiving
clarification that they are ALL legally obligated to make their web
sites accessible, they can now take comfort in the fact that if they
aren't big/rich enough for NFB and the gang to come after them, that
they can maintain the status quo of, at best, marginal accessibility.
Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with the outcome and I do think it
will motivate large corporate retailers to become accessible, but
without clarification of the true legal obligation, I fear the
influence of this settlement will not be very significant.
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 11:50AM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Is it really? It's good news for the NFB, its claimants, and Jim
> Thatcher (in the sum of $6 million+), but I think the majority of the
> accessibility community was hoping for some long-awaited case law that
> might better define the relationship of the Internet and the Americans
> with Disabilities Act.
I need to clarify my comments here. My wording above seems to suggest
self-interest by all parties involved. This is not what I intended.
Jim Thatcher is a consultant with NFB and will not be a direct
recipient of settlement monies. While I'm unaware of what his future
involvement will be in making the target web site more accessible as
part of this settlement, I have nothing but glowing praise for Jim and
the work he has done in the web accessibility field. My comment was
not to suggest self-interest on Jim's part, but to recognize him as
having played a significant role in this positive outcome. Indeed the
outcome likely would have been different without Jim's expertise. He
has always acted in the best interest of people with disabilities.
As a web consultancy, WebAIM has greatly benefited from work with
other corporate entities who are interested in web accessibility and
in minimizing liability, most of this a result of publicity
surrounding the Target lawsuit. I suspect this ruling will make us and
fellow web accessibility consultants even more in demand. Despite
this, I still feel that in this case the overall benefit to people
with disabilities is not nearly as significant as it would have been
if definitive case law had been established.
I've written an overview of the settlement and provided some
commentary on our blog at
http://webaim.org/blog/target-lawsuit-settled/
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Cynthia Waddell
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 12:40PM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
Everyone,
You will find pertinent information about the Target web accessibility
settlement posted at the www.dralegal.org website.
The Target Online Assistive Technology Guidelines - Exhibit C - is posted as
a Word document at
http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php.
Best regards,
Cynthia Waddell
--------------------------------------------------
Cynthia D. Waddell, JD
Executive Director and
Law, Policy and Technology Consultant
International Center for Disability Resources
on the Internet (ICDRI)
Phone: (408) 691-6921
ICDRI is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina USA
http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/cynthia_d.htm
See My New Book!
Web Accessibility: Web Standards and
Regulatory Compliance by Apress
at www.icdri.org/WSR_Book.htm
See also Constructing Accessible Web Sites
www.icdri.org/constructing_accessible_web_site.htm
Is your Web Site Accessible?
Find out now with Cynthia Says! www.cynthiasays.com
Endorsed by the American Council of the Blind,
the CynthiaSaysTM portal is a joint Education
and Outreach project of ICDRI, The Internet
Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter,
and HiSoftware.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jared Smith [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:44 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Target and NFB agree to Settlment
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Is it really? It's good news for the NFB, its claimants, and Jim
> Thatcher (in the sum of $6 million+), but I think the majority of the
> accessibility community was hoping for some long-awaited case law that
> might better define the relationship of the Internet and the Americans
> with Disabilities Act.
I need to clarify my comments here. My wording above seems to suggest
self-interest by all parties involved. This is not what I intended.
Jim Thatcher is a consultant with NFB and will not be a direct
recipient of settlement monies. While I'm unaware of what his future
involvement will be in making the target web site more accessible as
part of this settlement, I have nothing but glowing praise for Jim and
the work he has done in the web accessibility field. My comment was
not to suggest self-interest on Jim's part, but to recognize him as
having played a significant role in this positive outcome. Indeed the
outcome likely would have been different without Jim's expertise. He
has always acted in the best interest of people with disabilities.
As a web consultancy, WebAIM has greatly benefited from work with
other corporate entities who are interested in web accessibility and
in minimizing liability, most of this a result of publicity
surrounding the Target lawsuit. I suspect this ruling will make us and
fellow web accessibility consultants even more in demand. Despite
this, I still feel that in this case the overall benefit to people
with disabilities is not nearly as significant as it would have been
if definitive case law had been established.
I've written an overview of the settlement and provided some
commentary on our blog at
http://webaim.org/blog/target-lawsuit-settled/
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Tracy Edge
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 5:10PM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
That is good news!
Tracy Edge
SVP of Technology
Cell: 804-647-3900
Office: 804-918-1027
Have you tried our Free Accessibility Review?
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Michael R. Burks
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:37 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: [WebAIM] Target and NFB agree to Settlment
All,
This is great news!!!!
http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com/final_settlement.htm
Mike Burks
919 870 8788 - Office
919-882-1884 - Fax
703-254-3881 - Cell
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jukka K. Korpela
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:56 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] using ABBR for headers in tables
Brid Deely wrote:
> I would just like to ask for feedback on using the abbr tag in table
> headers.
Just don't use the abbr tag. It helps, at most, a very small fraction of
users. It may hurt many, and most importantly it makes you think you have
explained an abbreviation when you haven't.
> Also do you have any recommendations about how it should be used,
> e.g. only for longer headers?
Huh? Do you actually mean the abbr _attribute_, not the abbr _tag_? There's
a big difference.
Here you have an abbr tag:
<abbr title="Useless Initialism">UI</abbr>
which could be used inside a table header or elsewhere. Just don't.
Here you have an abbr attribute:
<th abbr="predicted">Predicted outcome in 2009"></th>
I think the idea is pretty simple, and useful (though not as useful as it
could with wider support):
1) Use it whenever the table header would be too long when pronounced while
reading a large number of cells, speaking first the row and column header
and then the cell content.
2) The abbr value should be short and understandable in the context of the
table, assuming that the user has access to the full header texts (and an
eventual caption for the table).
3) The name of the attribute is really a misnomer. The value need not be an
abbreviation of the content, i.e. something you get by omitting something
from it; it can be just any short expression that serves the purpose of
identifying a column or a row in the context of a table. Typically, however,
it's a word or a few words (not abbreviations!) extracted from the full
content of the cell.
Yucca
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 5:20PM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
Tracy,
Yes it is!
Mike Burks
919 870 8788 - Office
919-882-1884 - Fax
703-254-3881 - Cell
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tracy Edge
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:02 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Target and NFB agree to Settlment
That is good news!
Tracy Edge
SVP of Technology
Cell: 804-647-3900
Office: 804-918-1027
Have you tried our Free Accessibility Review?
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Michael R. Burks
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:37 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: [WebAIM] Target and NFB agree to Settlment
All,
This is great news!!!!
http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com/final_settlement.htm
Mike Burks
919 870 8788 - Office
919-882-1884 - Fax
703-254-3881 - Cell
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jukka K. Korpela
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:56 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] using ABBR for headers in tables
Brid Deely wrote:
> I would just like to ask for feedback on using the abbr tag in table
> headers.
Just don't use the abbr tag. It helps, at most, a very small fraction of
users. It may hurt many, and most importantly it makes you think you have
explained an abbreviation when you haven't.
> Also do you have any recommendations about how it should be used,
> e.g. only for longer headers?
Huh? Do you actually mean the abbr _attribute_, not the abbr _tag_? There's
a big difference.
Here you have an abbr tag:
<abbr title="Useless Initialism">UI</abbr>
which could be used inside a table header or elsewhere. Just don't.
Here you have an abbr attribute:
<th abbr="predicted">Predicted outcome in 2009"></th>
I think the idea is pretty simple, and useful (though not as useful as it
could with wider support):
1) Use it whenever the table header would be too long when pronounced while
reading a large number of cells, speaking first the row and column header
and then the cell content.
2) The abbr value should be short and understandable in the context of the
table, assuming that the user has access to the full header texts (and an
eventual caption for the table).
3) The name of the attribute is really a misnomer. The value need not be an
abbreviation of the content, i.e. something you get by omitting something
from it; it can be just any short expression that serves the purpose of
identifying a column or a row in the context of a table. Typically, however,
it's a word or a few words (not abbreviations!) extracted from the full
content of the cell.
Yucca
From: Terry Thompson
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2008 6:30PM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
I'm impressed by the Target Online Assistive Technology Guidelines. The
level of detail, complete with images and code samples from the Target
website, would seem to be an extremely useful resource for Target web
developers.
I agree with Jared though that it would have been nice if this had resulted
in case law that clarifies web accessibility from an ADA standpoint. Without
that clarification, does this strengthen the need for web/IT accessibility
to be addressed in the ADA Amendments, as recommended in Cyndi's blog post
back in June?
http://www.webaim.org/blog/update-on-the-ada/
Other than this blog post, I'm not seeing much buzz about web accessibility
in the ADA Amendments discussions. What's the status of this, and what
further actions should web accessibility advocates take?
Thanks,
Terry
Terry Thompson
Technology Accessibility Specialist
DO-IT, Accessible Technology
UW Technology Services
University of Washington
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
206/221-4168
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Cynthia Waddell
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:37 AM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Target and NFB agree to Settlment
>
> Everyone,
>
> You will find pertinent information about the Target web
> accessibility settlement posted at the www.dralegal.org website.
>
> The Target Online Assistive Technology Guidelines - Exhibit C
> - is posted as a Word document at
> http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Cynthia Waddell
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Cynthia D. Waddell, JD
> Executive Director and
> Law, Policy and Technology Consultant
> International Center for Disability Resources
> on the Internet (ICDRI)
> Phone: (408) 691-6921
>
> ICDRI is based in
> Raleigh, North Carolina USA
> http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/cynthia_d.htm
>
> See My New Book!
> Web Accessibility: Web Standards and
> Regulatory Compliance by Apress
> at www.icdri.org/WSR_Book.htm
> See also Constructing Accessible Web Sites
> www.icdri.org/constructing_accessible_web_site.htm
>
> Is your Web Site Accessible?
> Find out now with Cynthia Says! www.cynthiasays.com Endorsed
> by the American Council of the Blind, the CynthiaSaysTM
> portal is a joint Education and Outreach project of ICDRI,
> The Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter,
> and HiSoftware.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jared Smith [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:44 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Target and NFB agree to Settlment
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Jared Smith
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > Is it really? It's good news for the NFB, its claimants, and Jim
> > Thatcher (in the sum of $6 million+), but I think the
> majority of the
> > accessibility community was hoping for some long-awaited
> case law that
> > might better define the relationship of the Internet and
> the Americans
> > with Disabilities Act.
>
> I need to clarify my comments here. My wording above seems to
> suggest self-interest by all parties involved. This is not
> what I intended.
> Jim Thatcher is a consultant with NFB and will not be a
> direct recipient of settlement monies. While I'm unaware of
> what his future involvement will be in making the target web
> site more accessible as part of this settlement, I have
> nothing but glowing praise for Jim and the work he has done
> in the web accessibility field. My comment was not to suggest
> self-interest on Jim's part, but to recognize him as having
> played a significant role in this positive outcome. Indeed
> the outcome likely would have been different without Jim's
> expertise. He has always acted in the best interest of people
> with disabilities.
>
> As a web consultancy, WebAIM has greatly benefited from work
> with other corporate entities who are interested in web
> accessibility and in minimizing liability, most of this a
> result of publicity surrounding the Target lawsuit. I suspect
> this ruling will make us and fellow web accessibility
> consultants even more in demand. Despite this, I still feel
> that in this case the overall benefit to people with
> disabilities is not nearly as significant as it would have
> been if definitive case law had been established.
>
> I've written an overview of the settlement and provided some
> commentary on our blog at
> http://webaim.org/blog/target-lawsuit-settled/
>
> Jared Smith
> WebAIM
>
>
>
From: Nancy Johnson
Date: Thu, Aug 28 2008 12:00PM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | Next message →
I had a question regarding the terms of this lawsuit?
This lawsuit was brought by the NFB to aid the vision impaired. I
don't know if there is audio on Target's website for instance. Will
the training that Target will receive be broad enough to help folks
with all types of disabilities?
Thanks
Nancy
From: Terry Thompson
Date: Thu, Aug 28 2008 12:10PM
Subject: Re: Target and NFB agree to Settlment
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Nancy,
I haven't done a full item-by-item comparison of Target's guidelines with
the WCAG or Section 508 standards, but at a glance it seems to be pretty
all-inclusive. For example, there are guidelines related to appropriate use
of color, color contrast, photo-sensitivity issues, etc. Guideline 1.1.1,
although fairly broadly stated, does specifically address multimedia
accessibility:
> Improve the usability of all time-based and interactive multimedia -
including Flash and Acrobat content - by using text captioning and/or
synchronized audio.
Terry
Terry Thompson
Technology Accessibility Specialist
DO-IT, Accessible Technology
UW Technology Services
University of Washington
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
206/221-4168
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Nancy Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:50 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Target and NFB agree to Settlment
>
> I had a question regarding the terms of this lawsuit?
>
> This lawsuit was brought by the NFB to aid the vision
> impaired. I don't know if there is audio on Target's website
> for instance. Will the training that Target will receive be
> broad enough to help folks with all types of disabilities?
>
> Thanks
>
> Nancy
>