National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Filing 49

ERRATA re 42 Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by National Federation of the Blind, Bruce Frank Sexton, the National Federation of the Blind of California, National Federation of the Blind, Bruce Frank Sexton, the National Federation of the Blind of California. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 7/14/2006)

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 1 of 13

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 2 of 13

00001 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 4 ---------------5 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE ) Case No. 6 BLIND, et al., ) C 06-01802 MHP 7 Plaintiffs, ) 8 v. ) 9 TARGET CORPORATION, ) 10 Defendant. ) 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 13 DEPOSITION OF DR. JAMES THATCHER 14 FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 2006 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BY: CHRISTINE L. JORDAN, CSR NO. 12262 23 24 25

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 3 of 13

00043 1 Q. What is the purpose of considering a 2 clarification to the alt-text rule? 3 A. What is the purpose of clarifying the rule, 4 to make it clearer. 5 Q. Is it because it's difficult to apply as it 6 is today? 7 A. I don't think it's difficult to apply. I 8 think the problem is that we want -- we want web 9 developers to use accessibility standards and 10 guidelines to guide their work in developing accessible 11 products because they're not going to understand how 12 people with disabilities use their products. 13 Probably many web developers have never seen 14 a blind person use a screen reader on their website. 15 So we use those guidelines and standards to help them 16 do that job. And the clearer those standards and 17 guidelines are to that end, the better job is going to 18 be done. 19 Q. Do you know whether the WCAG standards that 20 were drafted in 1999 are undergoing any revisions? 21 A. Yes, I do. 22 Q. Is there a version -23 A. They are. 24 Q. -- Version 2.0 of them? 25 A. There's a Version 2.0 of the Web Content

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 4 of 13

00045 1 specific, and they want to have guidelines that are 2 more general. The second is to make certain that each 3 of the, let me call them, checkpoints be testable which 4 would throw out the example I used earlier in this 5 deposition about clear and lucid language or whatever 6 the correct phrasing is of that. 7 Let's see, testable. I've forgotten what the 8 third is. 9 Q. Do you know the timeline for the WCAG Version 10 2.0 to be finalized? 11 A. Yes. The timeline for the WCAG 2.0 -- that's 12 how WCAG is, W-C-A-G -- 2.0 has gone into what's called 13 last call, which is the last chance to provide comments 14 on the draft of the guidelines. After that, the Web 15 Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group will 16 seek and test websites that meet the various levels of 17 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines for two months, 18 approximately. 19 And if all of that is successful, then 20 sometime in September or October they will be -- maybe 21 the end of the year they'll be finalized. It's a 22 process that has been going on for four years. 23 Q. We talked earlier about the combination of 24 guidelines and standards that you use to provide a 25 consultancy service to someone regarding website

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 5 of 13

00081 1 Resources of the state use the Section 508 Standards as 2 their model for accessibility of information 3 technology. 4 I don't know about the details of any other 5 states. I know California has a law on accessible -6 accessibility, electronic and information 7 accessibility. But I don't know the details of it at 8 all. 9 Q. Do you know if there are states who have 10 adopted web accessibility guidelines that differ from 11 Section 508? 12 A. I don't know the answer to that question. 13 If -- if they -- if they do adopt -- if -- if they 14 don't adopt exactly 508 or exactly Web Content 15 Accessibility Guidelines, they may reword them a little 16 bit. But they'll be essentially the same. 17 Q. Have you -- do you know that? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Is it your opinion that there is a consensus 20 regarding the standards for website accessibility? 21 A. I think you already asked that question, but 22 I'll answer it again. 23 Yes, I think there is a consensus, and I 24 think the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 25 Version 2 is a manifestation of that consensus.

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 6 of 13

00082 1 Q. Are there any other manifestations of that 2 consensus? 3 A. Well, I think another manifestation of that 4 consensus is the work that I do and people like me do 5 in -- in evaluating and -- and suggesting 6 accessibility. We've been doing it long enough that -7 that we understand the way things should be done. And 8 so the written version, as I said, we've gone five 9 years on Version 1 of the guidelines, and now we're 10 going to have a new one that will help us clarify that, 11 that work. 12 Q. Is Version 2.0 currently being used by those 13 who evaluate website accessibility? 14 A. I think a fair answer is no because it -15 it's not official yet. But implicitly yes because the 16 example that I used, which I think is a good one, 17 rather than just say provide a text equivalent, we 18 separate out the kinds of text equivalent because we 19 know for an active image we want the equivalent to be 20 what the function of the image is for information, 21 varying the images. We want the -- the alt-text or 22 text equivalent to convey that information. 23 We do that. We understand that web 24 developers understand that. That's now being put into 25 the standard rather than just -- or guideline rather

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 7 of 13

00100 1 THE WITNESS: I applied a combination of 2 Section 508 and the Web Content Accessibility 3 Guidelines to look at the con- -- the code of 4 Target.com to find whether there were -- whether 5 alt-text had -- whether images had text equivalence, 6 whether forms were labeled, whether navigation was 7 possible, in-page navigation was possible, and whether 8 you could use the site with a keyboard. 9 BY MR. PLUNKETT: 10 Q. Is it correct, then, that you looked for 11 violations of the four guidelines we just talked about 12 to determine if Target.com was accessible or not? 13 A. That's true. 14 Q. Can a website violate one of those four 15 guidelines yet still be accessible? 16 MR. PARADIS: Objection; incomplete 17 hypothetical. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, a website can violate one 19 of those four and be accessible. 20 BY MR. PLUNKETT: 21 Q. If a website does violate one of those 22 standards, what guidelines do you apply to determine 23 whether the website is nonetheless accessible? 24 MR. PARADIS: Objection; incomplete 25 hypothetical.

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 8 of 13

00101 1 THE WITNESS: I don't have a standard to 2 apply to a website that doesn't -- what I judge 3 websites on is basically compliance. And if a website 4 is missing alt-text on unimportant images, I say you've 5 got to fix that. But in fact, the alt-text on those 6 unimportant images is not important for access by 7 screen readers. 8 BY MR. PLUNKETT: 9 Q. Did you form an opinion about whether 10 Target.com is compliant with the standards and 11 guidelines that you applied? 12 A. Yes, I did. 13 Q. And what was your opinion? 14 A. It is not. 15 Q. Did you form an opinion about whether or not 16 Target.com is accessible to blind users? 17 A. Yes, I did. 18 Q. What is your opinion? 19 A. It's not. 20 Q. What is your opinion that it is not 21 accessible based on? 22 A. Well, based first on -- on my looking at 23 approximately 15 pages and analyzing them specifically 24 in -- I looked at four categories. One is whether or 25 not the images had text equivalence, whether or not

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 9 of 13

00102 1 forms were labeled, whether or not you could use the 2 keyboard and whether there was any facility for in-page 3 navigation. And, basically, Target fails on all four 4 of those. 5 Q. If you learned that blind users of Target.com 6 were able to complete purchases of the products they 7 were seeking, would that change your opinion? 8 A. No, it would not change my opinion. 9 Q. Why not? 10 A. Because the -- if it -- because if a -- if a 11 blind person were able to complete a purchase on 12 Target.com, which I really doubt, but if they were, it 13 would only be in the face of incredible difficulties 14 and in the face of the combination of very frustrating 15 and very annoying imagemaps that have no text 16 equivalence, in the face of having to tab 50 times in 17 order to find a Continue Checkout button that is 18 labeled Proceed to Checkout button, in the face of not 19 being able to activate that button with the normal 20 procedures, and in the face of having to fill out forms 21 with your personal and financial information, having 22 no -- no sense of -- of security that the forms are 23 properly labeled so when you're putting in your credit 24 card or address or telephone number you're not positive 25 you're putting that information in the correct place.

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 10 of 13

00137 1 MR. PLUNKETT: Those are all the questions I 2 have. Thank you very much for your time. 3 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. 4 MR. PARADIS: I have a few questions. 5 EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. PARADIS: 7 Q. Dr. Thatcher, Mr. Plunkett asked you a number 8 of questions about Section 508 Guidelines or Standards 9 and WCAG Guidelines or Standards, Versions 1 and 10 Versions 2. To what extent does Target.com comply with 11 any of these standards? 12 MR. PLUNKETT: Objection; vague. 13 THE WITNESS: Target.com does not comply with 14 any of those standards. And you asked to what extent, 15 I would say to really an extreme extent. 16 BY MR. PARADIS: 17 Q. Mr. Plunkett asked you whether your analysis 18 was more quantitative rather than qualitative. To what 19 extent have you reached a qualitative opinion about the 20 usability of the Target.com website? 21 MR. PLUNKETT: Objection; vague. 22 THE WITNESS: I think that -- that there are 23 in my report and in my declaration both quantitative 24 and qualitative aspects of my assessment. And it's 25 kind of easier just to talk about the quantitative

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 11 of 13

00138 1 ones. They're so overwhelming, but there are 2 qualitative problems too. Like the character of the 3 alt-text on the Proceed to Checkout button is a 4 qualitative item. 5 BY MR. PARADIS: 6 Q. To what extent does the number of 7 quantitative problems become a qualitative issue? 8 A. That's the -- having seen screen reader users 9 access the web and software for years, I -- they are 10 constantly dealing with -- with problems that are lack 11 of accessibility and do every day on the web, even the 12 sites that some of the -- of the people have indicated 13 they're willing to do things at. There will be 14 accessibility errors there. But when the site is 15 replete with those errors, it becomes a worse -- even a 16 worse situation. 17 Q. You mentioned three different ways that blind 18 people strategically access web pages. In terms of 19 your analysis of the accessibility of Target.com, does 20 it matter which way a blind person tries to access the 21 web page? 22 A. I think I mentioned three strategies: One 23 was using a links list, the second was basically 24 tabbing through the page, the third was linking to the 25 page. Those are to set up the process of tacking up a

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 12 of 13

00139 1 given page. And in all three of those cases, the home 2 page of Target is a real, very serious problem. 3 Q. Mr. Plunkett asked you whether the experience 4 of a blind user may vary depending upon the type of 5 screen reader used. Are there any screen readers 6 available that a blind user could use that would make 7 the Target.com web page easily usable? 8 A. No, there aren't. 9 Q. Mr. Plunkett also asked you about different 10 types of operating systems. Are there any operating 11 systems currently available that a blind user could 12 employ that would make Target.com easily usable? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Mr. Plunkett asked you about different types 15 of web browsers. Are there any web browsers currently 16 available that a blind user can employ that would make 17 Target.com easily usable? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Mr. Plunkett asked you about various types of 20 screen readers, and you talked about JAWS and 21 Window-Eyes. Are there any screen readers currently 22 available that a blind user could employ that would 23 make Target.com readily or easily usable? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Mr. Plunkett asked you about different

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 49-2

Filed 07/14/2006

Page 13 of 13

00140 1 versions of JAWS. Are there any versions of JAWS 2 available that a blind user could employ that would 3 make Target.com easily usable? 4 A. No, there aren't. 5 Q. Based on your evaluation of Target.com, how 6 easy or difficult is it for a blind person using screen 7 access software to browse the site? 8 A. I believe it's impossible. 9 Q. Based on your evaluation, how difficult or 10 easy is it for a blind person to find a particular item 11 that person may wish to buy? 12 A. A person might be able to find a particular 13 item if they were lucky and chose the right strategy. 14 Q. And based on your evaluation of Target.com, 15 how difficult or easy would it be for a blind person to 16 independently complete a purchase? 17 A. Impossible. 18 MR. PARADIS: No further questions. 19 MR. PLUNKETT: No questions. 20 (At 12:50 P.M., the deposition proceedings 21 concluded.) 22 23 24 _________________________________________ DR. JAMES THATCHER