Rip's Discussion Topics #1

[Rip]

Recently there has been some legal news dealing with issues of cyber law, and more specifically websites behind standard businesses. In this situation the American Disabilities Act and Target’s digital reference are in conflict. This type of issue brings up a lot of interesting potential ramifications. A blind student at the University of Berkley apparently isn’t too happy that Target’s website isn’t tailored so he can use it as easily as his vision-capable peers. Because of this, he claims, Target is violating the ADA (American Disabilities Act). Target on the other hand insists that its website doesn’t need to comply because only its physical stores are covered by the act. Could target make its website ‘blind friendly’ reasonably? It should not be too difficult, there are already some possible solutions in place, and in fact the Target site ‘halfheartedly’ utilizes them, but clearly not enough to allow someone visually impaired to really use the site. It wouldn’t surprise me if this type of suit went through a variety of appeals, both sides seem to be setting this up based on ideals as opposed to an unusual circumstance. For the time being a judge has just announced that the lawsuit may go to court, so we should be hearing more in the future as it makes its way up through the ranks.
(You'll find I'm a fan of Ars Technica, they've got a lot of thought provoking news and content)
More information here (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060910-7705.html)

[edx]

I would think that the ADA applies to all properties pertaining to Target both physical and intellectual. It will be interesting to see what the end verdict is. I for one think that they should modify it to that fact.

[PMS Saphira]

I've seen a similar debate with Age of Mythology and color-blindness; there was another game where this debate came up in the forums although I don't remember the title off-hand. Color-blind folks had a hard time making out the different teams since some of the colors looked the same to them. There wasn't much of a response at the time, and the difference between AoM and AoE3 is that in AoE3 you can choose your team colors instead of being stuck with the default lineup of blue, red, green, and so on - AoM itself was never changed though. I don't know if this appeased everything since I haven't kept on top of the debate, but I think it is good that Ensemble Studios at least made an effort to accomodate them in the next game in the series.

Edx is right that the law needs to be changed to include websites and other intellectual property. It is not fair for Target to decide not to help someone and blame it on the way the law was written. If they can make an effort to accomodate a disabled customer, then every effort should be made to do so.

[Rip]

Interesting points, but I wonder if the ADA concept should necessarily be brought to video games, or what is the reasonable extent developers can go to accommodate the needs of people? For example lets take Rockstar table tennis, when there is spin on the ball it has a spinning arrow with a color that denotes the type of spin. Sure the spinning arrow gives you one form of visual clue, but by far the color is the easy way to tell which way its spinning.
I contend there are a plethora of products that inherently cannot accommodate all users, and unless they have sufficient need to one's successful life (say allowing someone without legs to drive a vehicle), there needs to be a defined point where product developers can say its just not logical to make products, software..etc for a group.
I think target should in fact conform their website to make it more usable by those with vision difficulties, when it comes to companies with physical real world assets (an office somewhere) they should be forced to comply. But there also needs to be some balance so this sort of good will idea doesn't get out of control. A coarse example, but do porn sites need to be equally accessible to visually impaired? In this circumstance I believe target is at fault, but I am very cautious to see any precedent come from the ruling.

[r33hash]

Videogames give warnings for those who are hindered by certain medical aspects of life, such as seizures. Yet those games are still made, even if the kids who are affected by said seizures cannot participate.

Its the same concept.

[hot chief DSO]

The ADA requires "reasonable accommodation" -- It isn't unreasonable for Target to make their site special-needs friendly. It certainly isn't prohibitive...

Aside from the law... as a matter of COMMON SENSE I can't imagine why a retailer would turn away $$!! Bad Business by Target. Small investment = big return.

Thanks for the topic, Rip :)