By Steve Jacobson

(Editor’s Note: Steve is vice president of the NFB of Minnesota, vice president of the NFB computer science division, and is employed as a Lead Computer Analyst at 3M Company.)

Perhaps every human being who ever lived thought that his or her time was the most complex of times. It certainly seems that we face many complexities today. I'd like to discuss a recent event here in Minnesota, that being our legal action regarding the accessibility of Target's website, and some related issues of philosophy and priorities. The intent is to explore thoughtfully some of the complexities of these times.

Most of you know that there was recently a settlement between a number of people, the National Federation of the Blind and the Target Corporation that commits Target to make and keep its website accessible to blind persons using screen readers. Since the Target Corporation is located in Minneapolis, the media was very interested in this case over the past years, and I was honored to present our side in several interviews. Probably because of the press contact, Target also was interested in talking to me. Twice target’s lawyers deposed me.

A deposition is somewhat like testifying in court but without a judge being present. What one says is considered to be evidence much like testimony, and one does promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Each session lasted several hours, and they often asked me the same question in a number of different ways to see if my answer was consistent. They also asked for a list of all the websites I visited for the previous year. It is fortunate that I make uninteresting stops along the information super highway. I was also present when our lawyers deposed Target personnel, and that was a very interesting experience.

Another of my activities is to be one of those who help Dave Andrews with our many NFBNET internet mailing lists, which are electronic discussion groups. These lists are made up of NFB members, non-members, some sighted persons interested in issues of the blind, students, senior citizens and probably just about any type of person you can name. Part of my role is to try to answer questions that come up, along with others, of course. In that capacity, I have seen and have tried to answer many questions, including some about Target. Some questions were easy, but some required a lot of thought. There were a few that required self-control, such as those that began “Why are you jerks for web accessibility but against . . .” whatever the questioner's favorite issue happened to be. However even questions such as those caused me to stop and think about priorities, philosophy, and our future. All right, I admit it; maybe I did mutter a few words of frustration before philosophy came to mind. There were questions I could not easily answer while proceedings were underway, but are worth answering now. Other questions may not have answers but are worth exploring nevertheless.

Why are you guys suing Target when their site is pretty easy to use? This one came up often. There are two answers to that question. The site was very difficult to use when the legal action was begun. There were times when you simply could not check out after making purchases with a screen reader. Even at that, some claimed that this was not the case, they could check out just fine. It was claimed that we just didn't know how to use the site. Such comments often came from people who tend to believe that being a member of the Federation made you wrong all by itself, regardless of your computer skills. However, sometimes it turned out that one could check out without encountering the roadblock to accessibility, depending upon factors I could never determine. Target could have helped us determine how to avoid the roadblock to checking out easily, though, had we been able to talk to them. Still, the fact that the results were not consistent, caused some to be unjustifiably critical of us. In addition, we began to notice that while Target was arguing with us, they were, in fact quietly working on their site. Therefore, some of the problems over which the legal action was launched were actually not apparent later on. That did not change the fact that there had been serious barriers to our using their site, nor did it change the fact that there were many smaller barriers to our on-line shopping experience. It also did not change their public position that they didn't need to do anything.

However, it doesn't make sense to look back any more than I have already done. My point is not to spotlight a rough road, but to make the point that when undertaking such a venture, the facts can change as we go making things complex. We succeeded though in gaining what I feel is a very good settlement with Target. In addition, as I observed their staff, I got the distinct feeling that they were anxious to get this behind them as well, and they put forth many good ideas. Even at that, what makes this case or web accessibility important? How does it fit into our general philosophy that we try not to expect the world to change for us? As one unfriendly list participant put it, "Why do you jerks work for web access but oppose accessible currency?"

First, let's set the record straight. One neat way to try to impress people with one's own argument is to restate the opposing argument in a way that strengthens one's own. This questioner ignored the fact that the National Federation of the Blind passed a resolution in support of accessible currency as part of a redesign of our currency in 1994. What we did not support was making our currency accessible by claiming we have not been able to use it for the past two hundred plus years, thus playing upon the image of the poor helpless blind person. We can't read our currency, but we have worked out methods to use it. Being able to identify currency would be convenient, but frankly, it won't change most of our lives substantially. As I have said, though, we did not oppose the idea of making currency accessible as other changes are made.

We all use money, but how many of our lives are impacted by Target's website? In the words of a reader offering comment on the Minneapolis Star Tribune website, "Why don't they (they being us) just go to another website?" That really is a question worth exploring even if it does feel a little like a punch in the stomach. Why not just find another place to shop? Isn't our philosophy that the world should not have to change for us? Aren't we asking Target to change for us?

One of the things I have always loved about this organization is that we have a philosophy. We try to look at the many issues we face to see what impact they will have in the end. We place a lot of faith in our ability to help one another as blind people and to help ourselves. Whether we use a white cane or a guide dog, we strive to travel independently. We have learned to determine when to cross streets by listening to traffic patterns. While perhaps not the first, our organization has established training centers that do the best job that has ever been done to inspire confidence and teach practical ways of successfully living meaningful and productive lives. We developed NFB-NEWSLINE® and the KNFB Reader and better canes. All of these accomplishments not only help us, but also make a positive impact on society by empowering us to contribute.

Nevertheless, we have also recognized over time that there are those things that we need to ask of society. For example, until recently the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped was our only real source of reading materials. We gratefully receive the assistance of thousands of volunteers who help prepare textbooks so that we can get an education. We now have some guarantees in law, but this was not always the case. While we benefit greatly from these programs and services, a good case can be made that society also benefits. Increasing our ability to get an education makes it more likely that we'll get the kinds of jobs we need to get to support ourselves and to pay taxes.

Let's look back six hundred years or so. Much of the literature of the day was hand copied line by line not unlike the way braille transcribers hand copied print textbooks into braille not many years ago. Then, Johann Gutenberg invented the first moveable-type printing press in 1439. While not the first system to print documents quickly, it caught on and its use spread throughout Europe and eventually the world. What if there had been a Renaissance Federation of the Blind, and what if there had been a device that, when connected to the printing press, would have made all documents printed also readable by blind persons?

It is my position that over the past twenty years or so, we have seen a change in how we handle information that is on the scale of the printing press. I do not claim that this change has as large an impact, because in many ways the changes simply mean that we handle information differently. However, the opportunity for us is not unlike the hypothetical device attached to the printing press. We are seeing an entire new infrastructure of information distribution. In ideal circumstances, a blind person with a computer and a screen reader can access much of the same information as can a sighted person, and we can do it independently. The challenge is that this technology is still new and it is rapidly changing. New ways of accessing and displaying information are constantly being developed. Changing technology is placing more power into the hands of people. Banking, registering for classes, shopping for groceries, and even ordering a Whopper at Burger King can be done with keyboards and displays. It also means, generally, that there are fewer people with whom to interact if one cannot use those technologies.

The rapid development of technology is proceeding almost like a very large ocean wave. Those of us in its vicinity have, for all practical purposes, two choices. With skill and luck, we can learn to ride the wave and let its energy carry us to places we have never been. However, we can also be swept under if we don't have the right skills and the right surf board, and be left behind. These two choices are there for all of society, but I maintain the choice is even a bigger one for those of us who are blind. In the best of all worlds, technology doesn't care that much if the product is displayed in print or braille, or spoken through a speech synthesizer. Many of us have already taken advantage of this with great success.

However, what if technology changes in ways that make it impossible for us to participate? We are seeing that occur as well. We are seeing jobs that can, for all practical purposes, not be performed by blind persons. This is not because the job can't be performed without sight, but because the software used won't work even though other software to do the same thing might work well. Usually, that which makes technology not accessible to us doesn't really make anything work better. Generally, it just makes the information look prettier, and it may make a product stand out and perhaps more likely to be purchased. In some cases, we do find we are placed at a disadvantage because of something that truly is new and improved. In those cases, we must use our minds and enlist the help of those producing adaptive equipment to bridge the gap, but we need help from those creating new technologies as well. Unfortunately, not to move ahead means moving backward with respect to the rest of society.

So what's the answer? The answer is education in many forms. We must show the public that while we need to be remembered when new technology is developed, we are also trying to meet them in the middle.

Our screen readers, speech synthesizers and braille displays do a great deal of the work. We are trying to do our part in other ways as well. Our organization has worked hard to influence the development of the KNFB Reader that holds the promise of bridging the gap as well in many areas. We are talking with willing partners to help them make their software and their websites easier for us to use, and if they plan for us from the start, it simply is not that expensive.

Some have chosen to ignore us along the way. Perhaps there will never be a time when all websites are accessible, and we must never forget how to manage readers and improvise when something does not work. Still, we can't afford just to go somewhere else to shop, because if we're ignored, that great ocean wave of technology will wash over us and leave us behind. Target did not stand alone, it is a part of a larger picture. By first challenging them and now working with them, we are changing a pattern of exclusion into one of inclusion.

Therefore, education sometimes means that the classroom is also the courtroom. It means doing what we can to limit purchases of inaccessible technology by some of the largest customers out there, our state and federal governments. It means sitting down and settling out of court once the realization is achieved that programmers are usually cheaper than lawyers are. It means that to stay on top of this wave, we must try to make our position known by picking those situations where there are fairly simple answers and where the benefits are great, and then being able to work with those we may have been obliged to challenge, something we have done many times now.

Our settlement with Target is just one more step in the right direction, but there have been many steps in which we have played an instrumental role. Over the years, we have achieved success with Microsoft, America Online, Adobe, Amazon, Target, and very recently, Apple. We have had a major impact on the development of voting machines and talking ATM machines, and the list could go on and on.

However, it is always important to think about what we ask society to do for us, and I am proud of our ability to do that too. We don't work to make Target's website accessible just because it wasn't; we do it because it is the second largest retailer in the country, and for them to publicly imply that they don't need to do it would have sent a huge message that we simply could not allow to stand. As proud as I am of all that the National Federation of the Blind has accomplished, I am most proud of our philosophy that says we need to do as much as we can for ourselves, while also looking at important issues and what they will mean to our blind kids and those who come after. If we are able to get people to think of us as part of the process of developing new technology, it won't cost much at all and it will result in other benefits, too. It will be like attaching that miracle device I mentioned earlier to the printing press, and I believe we are well on our way.

As I said at the outset, these times are complex. We are seeing changes that we cannot ignore while we try to maintain a strong belief in what we can do for ourselves. Maybe we'll make a mistake or two along the way, but if we always think about why we need to ask for a service or modification rather than simply demanding what we don't have, we will succeed in the end. In other words, philosophy is our target. It may be a difficult road to follow at times with necessary detours, but I believe it is the only road to equality.