NationStates Jolt Archive

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15419164/wid/11915829?GT1=8618


Blind man is suing Target becasue their website isnt accessable to the blind. WTF?!

has political correctness gone to far. I swear we're going to be living in a Fahrenheit 451 world sooner than we think.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15419164/wid/11915829?GT1=8618


Blind man is suing Walmart becasue their website isnt accessable to the blind. WTF?!

has political correctness gone to far. I swear we're going to be living in a Fahrenheit 451 world sooner than we think.

fuck wallmart, they deserve every piece of litigation brought against them. it's not like they can't afford it anyway.

That's like suing Ford for making a car that can't be driven by a blind person. Ridiculous.

1. They're suing Target, not Wal*Mart, Wal*Mart's site works just fine.

2. And yes, how DARE disabled people demand access to the same venues and experiances that everyone else has. They have no shame at all. They should be hiding at home where we never see them so we don't have to put up with it.

Of course it WOULD help if the Internet worked for them so they could do that.

Actually the store is Target, not Wal-Mart.

1. They're suing Target, not Wal*Mart, Wal*Mart's site works just fine.

2. And yes, how DARE disabled people demand access to the same venues and experiances that everyone else has. They have no shame at all. They should be hiding at home where we never see them so we don't have to put up with it.

Of course it WOULD help if the Internet worked for them so they could do that.

What reason does a blind person have for a website that you need to SEE. not that i will ever disrespect the blind, but come on, suing a company becasue a blind person cant use their visual media? its like this guy is begging for attention. Do you really think that most blind people care that target's site isnt easy for them to use?

That's like suing Ford for making a car that can't be driven by a blind person. Ridiculous.

No it isn't. You can't drive the Internet off an embankment and into a ditch.

Um... how do you make a website accessible to the blind? I mean, I guess you could code it so that a voice reads every word and/or link your mouse rolls over but... I dunno. :confused:

How the hell do you make a website accessable to the blind?

How ignorant to think that blind people cant use something like the internet or computers... Enlightment:

http://www.abilityhub.com/vision/blind.htm

http://www.freedomscientific.com/

http://www.screenreader.co.uk/

;)

No it isn't. You can't drive the Internet off an embankment and into a ditch.

but why does a blind person need the internet when you need to SEE THE INTERNET TO USE IT?

honestly...woo equality and rights...but you've gotta admit...this man is going way off the deep end here. and nadkor is right...it is like suing ford for not making a car that can be driven by the blind.

And on that topic...does anybody wonder why theres brail on the buttons at an ATM? do blind people really drive up to an ATM and use it?

Um... how do you make a website accessible to the blind? I mean, I guess you could code it so that a voice reads every word and/or link your mouse rolls over but... I dunno. :confused:

Thing is, the internet wasn't made for the blind.

It sucks, but it's true. I can't believe people sue over things like this, though. This is worse than the "Imma sue McDonalds because I got fat" fad that was goign along a couple of years ago!

No it isn't. You can't drive the Internet off an embankment and into a ditch.
That's only because the Internet has already been crashed into the ditch and is, at the moment, very slowly burning up while it sinks deeper into the muck.

I didn't say they couldn't, I just wasn't aware of the methods. But again, why couldn't the man have just used one of those programs to read the site? Was Target's site somehow incompatible?

What reason does a blind person have for a website that you need to SEE. not that i will ever disrespect the blind, but come on, suing a company becasue a blind person cant use their visual media? its like this guy is begging for attention. Do you really think that most blind people care that target's site isnt easy for them to use?
Oh I dunno... they just might want to buy something. Crazy idea, I know, but it could be that it's far easier to go to target.com and order, oh, say, some CDs, that to go there in person and bug a clerk to find the right CD.

Or books on tape, or pots and pans, or gifts, or whatever the Hell it is Tagret is selling off of its website.

And honestly, the coding to allow Jaws or other programs to work isn't THAT difficult to add in.

What reason does a blind person have for a website that you need to SEE.

well its a bitch to walk around looking for a particular product in all the shops especially if you happen to be blind

not that i will ever disrespect the blind, but come on, suing a company becasue a blind person cant use their visual media?

I think he should be suing Jaw for that one (well unless multiple emails have been sent asking them to change the site or something)

Do you really think that most blind people care that target's site isnt easy for them to use?

yes?

Even if they could read the site through programs, not seeing any pictures will be a major detriment. The web has always been primarily visual media, certainly shopping sites are even more so.

I didn't say they couldn't, I just wasn't aware of the methods. But again, why couldn't the man have just used one of those programs to read the site? Was Target's site somehow incompatible?

i think that was the issue. but it shouldnt matter...outside of it being not politically correct, theres no law against not having your website blind accessable.

No it isn't. You can't drive the Internet off an embankment and into a ditch.

A car can be driven in a controlled environment, but a blind person still won't be able to know where they're going.

but why does a blind person need the internet when you need to SEE THE INTERNET TO USE IT?
No you don't, ever hear of a text-only browser?

And on that topic...does anybody wonder why theres brail on the buttons at an ATM? do blind people really drive up to an ATM and use it?
Because the blind use walk-up ATMs and the drive up ones are the normal walk up ones with a different case. Why tool for two different types of buttons when one set works for both?

I didn't say they couldn't, I just wasn't aware of the methods. But again, why couldn't the man have just used one of those programs to read the site? Was Target's site somehow incompatible?
Yes, that IS the problem.

i think that was the issue. but it shouldnt matter...outside of it being not politically correct, theres no law against not having your website blind accessable.
*cough* Americans with Disabilites Act *Cough*

Even if they could read the site through programs, not seeing any pictures will be a major detriment. The web has always been primarily visual media, certainly shopping sites are even more so.

you need to see things before you buy them?

A car can be driven in a controlled environment, but a blind person still won't be able to know where they're going.

what about one of those autopilot cars? (though anyone who trusts there life with GPS is a fool)

No you don't, ever hear of a text-only browser?


Because the blind use walk-up ATMs and the drive up ones are the normal walk up ones with a different case. Why tool for two different types of buttons when one set works for both?


the ones i use are specifically drive through. like you dont get out of your car kind.....i see what your saying...but THAT is completely unnecessary. but i understand the ones that you have to get out of your car and walk up to the building to use.

Even if they could read the site through programs, not seeing any pictures will be a major detriment. The web has always been primarily visual media, certainly shopping sites are even more so.
No, the web as been text for most of its life. It's only currently that it's pretty pictures and even THEN, good coding asks that you provide a good description of said pretty picture.

Go read up on Section 508, http://www.section508.gov/

It's not hard to get your site ready for it.

you need to see things before you buy them?

ummm...yeah

The web has always been primarily visual media, certainly shopping sites are even more so.

No, it hasn't always been like that. You evidently weren't using the internet anytime before 1996.

the ones i use are specifically drive through. like you dont get out of your car kind.....i see what your saying...but THAT is completely unnecessary. but i understand the ones that you have to get out of your car and walk up to the building to use.
*Sighs* The case surrounding a drive up is different, the guts of the machine are NOT different. It's the SAME DAMN MACHINE.

And again, why have the cost to make two sets of buttons when the one set works anywhere, can be swapped at a moments notice, and doesn't bother people?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6700553.html

god forbid any blind person could own one of these and expect to be able to access the same sites that people with healthy eyes can :rolleyes:

the ones i use are specifically drive through. like you dont get out of your car kind.....i see what your saying...but THAT is completely unnecessary. but i understand the ones that you have to get out of your car and walk up to the building to use.

And I don't understand the need for drive-through ATMs.

How the hell do you make a website accessable to the blind?
You are WinRar.

ummm...yeah
You must never buy anything off the Internet then, or mail order, or over the phone, or in anything other than a store.

And again, why have the cost to make two sets of buttons when the one set works anywhere, can be swapped at a moments notice, and doesn't bother people?
Considering the fact that it has been a prefered topic by every hack comedian since the 90's, it is actually bothering me in an indirect manner.
So there goes your argument down in flames, don't you feel foolish?

you need to see things before you buy them?



what about one of those autopilot cars? (though anyone who trusts there life with GPS is a fool)

And I don't understand the need for drive-through ATMs.

you dont really need them. but theyre good if its raining..or snowing...or if theres like a guy with a gun standing in the bush's waiting to ambush you. at least if your in a car your protected.

You must never buy anything off the Internet then, or mail order, or over the phone, or in anything other than a store.

Presumably a store he can drive his car through.

There are way too many sue happy people out here. It frustrates the hell out of me. Why can't people do some things more constructive instead of destructive. Rediculous. I can't just blame these ambulance chasin lawyers either, I blame some of these judges. What ever happened with people using there heads.......Common Sense.

Blind people suing Target for not having a website for visual impaired.
fat asses suing McDonalds for making them fat
People suing doctors for not having a perfect outcome.
Some states allow criminals who break into homes and get hurt to sue the owner of the home..... come on now.....

Oh yeah. That one guy broke into a house when the family was away, got locked in the garage and had to live on Pepsi and Dog food for a week or so. Then he sued for 'mental duress'.

*cough* Americans with Disabilites Act *Cough*

Thank you.

ummm...yeah

I must go to your McDonalds it sounds enchanting:)

Oh yeah. That one guy broke into a house when the family was away, got locked in the garage and had to live on Pepsi and Dog food for a week or so. Then he sued for 'mental duress'.

And how does that relate to not being able to access information which everybody else can and does as easily as pie?

Nothing directly, I just brought it up because King Bodacious mentioned stupid lawsuits.

Considering the fact that it has been a prefered topic by every hack comedian since the 90's, it is actually bothering me in an indirect manner.
So there goes your argument down in flames, don't you feel foolish?
Sorry, I can't protect you against bad comedians.

im going to sue target because their technology isnt compatible with my technology :rolleyes:

im going to sue software creators whenever they dont make something compatible with my machine.

im going to sue target because their technology isnt compatible with my technology :rolleyes:

im going to sue software creators whenever they dont make something compatible with my machine.
Well, if such compatability makes it so you cannot function equally, and the target of your lawsuit is ignoring standards set out by law under the ADA and Section 508... go for it.

lol, this made me chuckle. Why cant I have brail on my computer screen?:p

ummm...yeah

So you have to see your CD before you buy it? You have to see your asprin before you buy it? You have to see your toilet paper before you buy it? You have to see your dog food before you buy it? Even if you know the brand and size you want? Get real. You don't have to see a great many things to buy them.

the ones i use are specifically drive through. like you dont get out of your car kind.....i see what your saying...but THAT is completely unnecessary. but i understand the ones that you have to get out of your car and walk up to the building to use.

In addition to NERVUN's explanation, there is one more reason for it. You do realize you can access a drive through ATM from the back seat of a taxi cab or other vehicle don't you? Blind people do use drive trhough ATM as well as restaurants, banks, liquor stores, etc. They just do so from the back seat. Even I've gone through the drive through ATM from the back of a cab. And I'm sure as hell not going to trust some strange cabbie to use my card to pull money out for me.

There are way too many sue happy people out here. It frustrates the hell out of me. Why can't people do some things more constructive instead of destructive. Rediculous. I can't just blame these ambulance chasin lawyers either, I blame some of these judges. What ever happened with people using there heads.......Common Sense.

Blind people suing Target for not having a website for visual impaired.
fat asses suing McDonalds for making them fat
People suing doctors for not having a perfect outcome.
Some states allow criminals who break into homes and get hurt to sue the owner of the home..... come on now.....



The first example is nothing like the other three. Although that's assuming you were not talking about ligitmate malpractice suits when a doctor royally fucks up. But as regards the issue at hand, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the ADA, and with the technology that exists that would make it possible for a blind person to use the internet. Are you also willing to say that those in wheelchairs like myself should not be provided with wheelchair lifts for publis transportation because, after all, why would a guy in a wheelchair need to ride a bus? Do try to think before you post, next time.

Maybe Target don't want blind people's business. I am sure the concept of sueing was developed to counter serious injustices such as this.

In addition to Nazz' explanation, there is one more reason for it.
*LOL* That's the first time I've been confused with The Nazz.

He writes better than I do. :p

*LOL* That's the first time I've been confused with The Nazz.

He writes better than I do. :p

*lol* Oops. It's been a long day. :p Corrected.

Internet for the blind (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/blind.php)

I know the internet should be accessible to anyone who wants to access it, but the physically impaired should accept that there are things that are inherently counter to their impairments. Sure, a blind person can go see a magic show, but why? Deaf people can go see a ventriloquist act, but why? What is gained? What is gained from blind people browsing the internet? It is a medium strictly for those who can see, like video games. It has got to be easier to go to the physical store to get things.

I know the internet should be accessible to anyone who wants to access it, but the physically impaired should accept that there are things that are inherently counter to their impairments. Sure, a blind person can go see a magic show, but why? Deaf people can go see a ventriloquist act, but why? What is gained? What is gained from blind people browsing the internet? It is a medium strictly for those who can see, like video games. It has got to be easier to go to the physical store to get things.
Try it and see.

I know the internet should be accessible to anyone who wants to access it, but the physically impaired should accept that there are things that are inherently counter to their impairments. Sure, a blind person can go see a magic show, but why? Deaf people can go see a ventriloquist act, but why? What is gained? What is gained from blind people browsing the internet? It is a medium strictly for those who can see, like video games. It has got to be easier to go to the physical store to get things.
normally i would agree, but some of these lawsuits are aimed at raising attention for an issue. blind internet apparently has a resolution, so large companies should accomodate it.

the collapse of civilization occurs when a lawsuit is filed for failure to warn the customer hot coffee is hot.
EDIT that said, I am not certain it is the responsibility of a private company to accomodate; it is certainly the responsibility of civil services, but I'm always grey and fuzzy on the requirements of the private sector.

normally i would agree, but some of these lawsuits are aimed at raising attention for an issue. blind internet apparently has a resolution, so large companies should accomodate it.

the collapse of civilization occurs when a lawsuit is filed for failure to warn the customer hot coffee is hot.
EDIT that said, I am not certain it is the responsibility of a private company to accomodate; it is certainly the responsibility of civil services, but I'm always grey and fuzzy on the requirements of the private sector.
Reasonable accomodation, and coding an accessable website isn't THAT much work (and is part of good coding anywho).

And that coffee things has reached urban legend status in terms of being overblown and usually wrong in the details.

I'm waiting for a deaf person to sue a radio station or record company.

(Actually - I would not be surprised if this happened already)

I'm waiting for a deaf person to sue a radio station or record company.

(Actually - I would not be surprised if this happened already)

Don't be an ass. That attitude is very insulting.

Don't be an ass. That attitude is very insulting.
Which part was insulting?

There question was where would it end, I gave an answer.

A deaf person suing a radio station is not much different from a blind person suing a company over internet pages.

The second part, about not being surprised if it has alsready happened - you get so much dumb shit that people sue for - "There was no label on my microwave telling me not to dry my pet cat in there" - I fail to be surprised by anything people sue for these days.

I know the internet should be accessible to anyone who wants to access it, but the physically impaired should accept that there are things that are inherently counter to their impairments. Sure, a blind person can go see a magic show, but why? Deaf people can go see a ventriloquist act, but why? What is gained? What is gained from blind people browsing the internet? It is a medium strictly for those who can see, like video games. It has got to be easier to go to the physical store to get things.

I'm honestly amazed at the number of people who are unaware of software and hardware designed to allow blind people to use computers and the internet... :eek:

It's Clinton's fault. Really.

At first it does seem rather a stretch, blind people using the Internet, but with a little investigation, I find that that's actually well within the realm of possibility. I suppose one could say that a lawsuit is overkill, but it certainly did get Target's attention. I imagine they already have guys working on making the site more accessible, they'll just wait a bit so it doesn't look like they folded because some lawyers filed paper.

Basically, this lawsuit is about one thing:
Last month a federal judge in California allowed the NFB's case to proceed, rejecting Target's argument that its Web site wasn't subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act, a 1990 law that requires retailers and other public places to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Target argued that the law only covered physical spaces.Target is providing services over the internet, and now a court will decide whether those services need to be regulated by the AWDA.

I know the internet should be accessible to anyone who wants to access it, but the physically impaired should accept that there are things that are inherently counter to their impairments. Sure, a blind person can go see a magic show, but why? Deaf people can go see a ventriloquist act, but why? What is gained? What is gained from blind people browsing the internet? It is a medium strictly for those who can see, like video games. It has got to be easier to go to the physical store to get things.

Exactly.

I'm waiting for a deaf person to sue a radio station or record company.

(Actually - I would not be surprised if this happened already)

Or the guy without legs, that sues a football producing company, for not having a football that can be kicked without legs. Or maybe we could even sue the oceans/rainforests for not producing enough oxygen.

Which part was insulting?

There question was where would it end, I gave an answer.

A deaf person suing a radio station is not much different from a blind person suing a company over internet pages.
No, it's not. It would be rather akin to a deaf person suing when a TV station decides to not have closed captioning for its programs.

Here's the difference, radio cannot be changed to include a closed caption system for the deaf (Though this may change with more digital broadcasts). The Internet though is a text medium (Yes, I'm sure you young'uns keep forgetting that the Internet was around long before AOL), text readers can easily read pages to the blind if the site is coded properly, which is a part of good coding operations anyway.

This technology has been around for awhile, Section 508 has been around for awhile, and blind people needing access has REALLY been around for awhile.

Since the standard of the ADA is reasonable accomodation, I'd say that this is very reasonable.

This has gone much too far. We need to step back and allow corporations to spend their money however they wish to do so. If they don't want to attract blind consumers, so be it. The state should not force them to -- that way lies communism.

If the government provides the good, fine. If not, then the law suit should fail.

This has gone much too far. We need to step back and allow corporations to spend their money however they wish to do so. If they don't want to attract blind consumers, so be it. The state should not force them to -- that way lies communism.
We already know your views on those with disabilites. Hopefully you'll never have to live with one, but should you do, I do hope you enjoy the taste of crow.

If the government provides the good, fine. If not, then the law suit should fail.
The good what?

The law? Americans with Disabilties Act and Section 508.
The technology? There's already a plethora of readers for the blind out there, Jaws (mentioned in the article) is very popular.
The need to change? What?

We already know your views on those with disabilites. Hopefully you'll never have to live with one, but should you do, I do hope you enjoy the taste of crow.

What view do I have on those with disabilities? I certainly don't think that they should be used by politicians to restrict the financial freedoms of corporations -- that's for sure. However, I am sure that certain corporations will seize upon the market of people with disabilities if it is untapped, so it should pose no inconvenience to anyone. The disabled get to do whatever they want, and so do corporations. It's a win-win situation, and we don't have to resort to draconic communistic measures to enforce co-operation.

The good what?
The good being provided. In this case, the company's website.

What view do I have on those with disabilities? I certainly don't think that they should be used by politicians to restrict the financial freedoms of corporations -- that's for sure. However, I am sure that certain corporations will seize upon the market of people with disabilities if it is untapped, so it should pose no inconvenience to anyone. The disabled get to do whatever they want, and so do corporations. It's a win-win situation, and we don't have to resort to draconic communistic measures to enforce co-operation.
Ditto.

What view do I have on those with disabilities? I certainly don't think that they should be used by politicians to restrict the financial freedoms of corporations -- that's for sure. However, I am sure that certain corporations will seize upon the market of people with disabilities if it is untapped, so it should pose no inconvenience to anyone. The disabled get to do whatever they want, and so do corporations. It's a win-win situation, and we don't have to resort to draconic communistic measures to enforce co-operation.
Bull shit. No, the disabled don't get to do what they want, that was the whole POINT of ADA in the first place because buisnesses wouldn't put in accessability ramps. Like I said, you don't live with a disability so you do not know how hard it is.

Try walking in their shoes for a bit.

And as for your views... was it not you who said that we should enslave those who had mental disabilties?

The good being provided. In this case, the company's website.
Go look up Section 508, it lists what the requierments are as well as provides code to help out.

Like I said, it ain't hard.

Go look up Section 508, it lists what the requierments are as well as provides code to help out.

Like I said, it ain't hard.
I was speaking in general terms - not referring to the status quo.

I was speaking in general terms - not referring to the status quo.
Please explain then, because I cannot understand what your point is.

Please explain then, because I cannot understand what your point is.
That I do not condone the status quo, evidently. I do not think a company should be forced to provide to certain consumers. It's its prerogative.

That I do not condone the status quo, evidently. I do not think a company should be forced to provide to certain consumers. It's its prerogative.
And if left to their perogative it would strip freedom of movement and choice from those who have a disability. You give freedom to a company, but take it away from the people...


Interesting.

And if left to their perogative it would strip freedom of movement and choice from those who have a disability. You give freedom to a company, but take it away from the people...


Interesting.
Companies will arise to accommodate their needs. They thrive on maximising profits -- if one doesn't, another will.

I know the internet should be accessible to anyone who wants to access it, but the physically impaired should accept that there are things that are inherently counter to their impairments. Sure, a blind person can go see a magic show, but why? Deaf people can go see a ventriloquist act, but why? What is gained? What is gained from blind people browsing the internet? It is a medium strictly for those who can see, like video games. It has got to be easier to go to the physical store to get things.

In the future, please kindly refrain from presuming to tell me what I should or should not have to accept.

What view do I have on those with disabilities? I certainly don't think that they should be used by politicians to restrict the financial freedoms of corporations -- that's for sure. However, I am sure that certain corporations will seize upon the market of people with disabilities if it is untapped, so it should pose no inconvenience to anyone. The disabled get to do whatever they want, and so do corporations. It's a win-win situation, and we don't have to resort to draconic communistic measures to enforce co-operation.


And corporations should be allowed to restrict me? And you're sure they'll seize upon that market are you? Funny, they haven't yet, and I assure you the disabled are an untapped market. The disabled get to do what ever they want? In what context did you mean that? What corporation would voluntarily cost itself more money just so that the disabled are not inconvenienced? If there were such companies, the ADA wouldn't have been necessary. If we have to resort to, as you so humorously put it, "draconian communistic measures" to assure that the disabled are treated like the human beings that we are, so be it. We are not asking to be coddled, no matter what you think. We are asking for a level playing field.

Companies will arise to accommodate their needs. They thrive on maximising profits -- if one doesn't, another will.
Again, bull shit. I currently live in Japan, which does not have an equivlent of the ADA. Many train stations have no accessability for those in wheelchairs or who have a hard time climbing steps (something pointed out from time to time when a wheelchair bound person is forced to ask someone to carry him up the steps to the station).

The whole reason ADA came into being was because companies were not picking up, or those that did were located only in urban areas, or did not offer a choice, or freedom of movement.

Again, you strip liberties and freedoms from people and give them to companies for profit only.

I understand his concern and frustration.

Bit why the fuck do Americans have to sue at the first opportunity?! Couldn't he have just sent a polite request first?

There was a pic of me posted on a site, witout my permission. I told the site I owned the copyright, and politeloy asked them to remove it. It was only when they ignored me that I threatened to sue, quoting specific law and finally giving them a certain period in which to respond before a lawsuit was brought against them.

They finally removed the pic.

I wanna sue someone!

I understand his concern and frustration.

Bit why the fuck do Americans have to sue at the first opportunity?! Couldn't he have just sent a polite request first?

There was a pic of me posted on a site, witout my permission. I told the site I owned the copyright, and politeloy asked them to remove it. It was only when they ignored me that I threatened to sue, quoting specific law and finally giving them a certain period in which to respond before a lawsuit was brought against them.

They finally removed the pic.

I wanna sue someone!
I would assume that he did, but sadly large corperations have a tendancy to ignore people until you sue them.

Ditto.

it kills me to do this but I a.... agree with MeansToAnEnd, on his viewpoint that the private sector should be able to decide to what trouble they are willing to go to make their product/service accessable.

Companies will arise to accommodate their needs. They thrive on maximising profits -- if one doesn't, another will.

Considering that the disability market is very small and extremely diverse, I can assure you that no companies will arise to accomodate their needs.
Let's take the simple example of books written in Braille. It is an extremely small market of people who are interested in buying them, the production costs for these books is horrendous. As a result, a Braille book of a normal, best-sellng author can cost you up to 200 Euros. A normal small novel (200 pages) starts at around 60 Euros.
As the market is so very small, there is not enough capacity for two or more competing companies, therefore prices could go up unchallenged.

And I was so far talking about companies trying to find niche markets. Big companies such as Target, Tesco, Asda, ect. don't have any need whatsoever to accomodate small fringe groups, and would not do so on their own, as is apparent from the example in this thread. Left to itself, this situation would force people with disabilities even more to the edges of society. They would be forced to resort to the very few and far between companies who target their market unchallenged and to pay whatever prices these companies would ask of them, for the simple reason that they are not given another choice.

What you are advocating is basically punishment for people with disabilities for having disabilities in the first place.

No, it's not. It would be rather akin to a deaf person suing when a TV station decides to not have closed captioning for its programs.

Here's the difference, radio cannot be changed to include a closed caption system for the deaf (Though this may change with more digital broadcasts).

What? How hard would it be for a radio station to broardcast the words spoken so they show up on a specialised screen on someones radio?

What? How hard would it be for a radio station to broardcast the words spoken so they show up on a specialised screen on someones radio?

Given today's standard of voice recognition software, very difficult indeed. Almost impossible, I'd say.

Given today's standard of voice recognition software, very difficult indeed. Almost impossible, I'd say.
The news and a lot of the content is all on a script...

Sports broardcasts already (sometimes) give a ticker-tape reporting on the internet - how hard to apply it to a radio system?

The news and a lot of the content is all on a script...

Sports broardcasts already (sometimes) give a ticker-tape reporting on the internet - how hard to apply it to a radio system?

That would be a parallel feed, not transferring the program itself into written text. As you said, many broadcaster provide short summaries of their news program online as it is, so that demand is already partially met.
On the other hand, in order to transfer a complete radio program from spoen to written would require a lot more than just feeding news tickers onto the internet. It would require voice recognition programs for the broadcaster, and a special form of hardware for the listener/reader in order to receive the program.
Neither of which exist in adequate form at the moment.

No it isn't. You can't drive the Internet off an embankment and into a ditch.

Not with an attitude like that. You just gotta try harder.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15419164/wid/11915829?GT1=8618


Blind man is suing Target becasue their website isnt accessable to the blind. WTF?!

has political correctness gone to far. I swear we're going to be living in a Fahrenheit 451 world sooner than we think.

Actually there is precedent for this kind of suit. Access Now, Inc v. Southwest Airlines Co in Federal District Court in Florida in 2002. Access Now filed suit on behalf of a blind man under the Americans with Disabilities Act in general (and Title III in particular) claiming descrimination since the Southwest Airlines website was not compatible with software used by the blind.

The court held that a website is not a physical place and thus does not qualify as a "place of public accommodation" under the Act.

Unless they've got something new to file under, or are dealing with a court that does not view the Access Now decision as primary mandatory authority, I don't really see them winning.

[/law student craziness]

edit: I see they're filing in Federal Court in California. California will likely look at the Access Now case and consider its argument in its determination. The Florida holding is not mandatory for California, but is likely to be persuasive. This is probably a case of first impression in California. It's also possible that this case could go to the US Supreme Court (I'm curious as to whether it would though since the last case did not), and the Supreme Court could make a ruling that would affect all courts in the US.

As far as I can tell, the facts in each case are so similar that I feel it's likely they will get the same ruling.

The fact is, the whole "let companies alone and they will do what they can to maximize their own profits so we don't need this kind of law" has one huge, giant, gaping hole.

It assumes that a company can draw profits from accomodating to the disabled, it assumes that the money generated by making your store disabled accessable is more than the cost of making your store disabled accessable.

If it is not, then no company will willingly do it. And the fact that the ADA was needed IN THE FIRST PLACE indicates that no company WAS willingly doing it.

And for the whole "oh we're taking the rights from the company!" screw that. A company isn't a person, it doesn't have human rights. It has the privlidges that the government in which it does business chooses to give it. And the government of the United States says that if you want to do business in the United States you make your business handicapped accessable.

A business has no rights, to say it does breaks the very definition of a right. A business, as an entity, is goverened by the laws that the government CHOOSES to bind it by.

Given that it's not only technically possible to make websites accessible, but also extremely easy and cheap, companies have no excuse not to do so. Unless providing accessibility is extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive a company should do so.

The fact is, the whole "let companies alone and they will do what they can to maximize their own profits so we don't need this kind of law" has one huge, giant, gaping hole.

It assumes that a company can draw profits from accomodating to the disabled, it assumes that the money generated by making your store disabled accessable is more than the cost of making your store disabled accessable.

If it is not, then no company will willingly do it. And the fact that the ADA was needed IN THE FIRST PLACE indicates that no company WAS willingly doing it.

Indeed. Many, if not the majority, of disabled people in the US live below the poverty line. For the most part there is no profit in catering to the disabled community. I know of many disabled people who are totally dependent on social security for all of their income and get less than $600 a month. $600 a month. For everything. Rent, food, electric, doctors appointments, medications, clothing, necessary medical accessories, etc. Could you live on that? The US treats it's disabled citizens like crap. The least they can do is make society a little more accessible.

Considering that the disability market is very small and extremely diverse, I can assure you that no companies will arise to accomodate their needs.
Let's take the simple example of books written in Braille. It is an extremely small market of people who are interested in buying them, the production costs for these books is horrendous. As a result, a Braille book of a normal, best-sellng author can cost you up to 200 Euros. A normal small novel (200 pages) starts at around 60 Euros.
As the market is so very small, there is not enough capacity for two or more competing companies, therefore prices could go up unchallenged.
What are the costs to small- and medium- sized businesses though of being forced to accommodate such individuals? Can they afford it? These enterprises, whilst they tend at least to break even, cannot sustain the same kind of costs larger corporations can -- dozens of other laws and the free market itself is already pressuring them. Unless, of course, Judges factor in the actual ability of an enterprise to accommodate such individuals, I would think it would be rather taxing for them.

factor in the actual ability of an enterprise to accommodate such individuals, I would think it would be rather taxing for them.

That consideration is taken into account in the law itself.

When do I have to provide an accommodation?

You must provide a reasonable accommodation if a person with a disability needs one....You do not have to provide any accommodation that would pose an undue hardship.

What is undue hardship?

Undue hardship means that providing the reasonable accommodation would result in significant difficulty or expense, based on your resources and the operation of your business.

From the website of the equal employment opportunity commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/adahandbook.html

That consideration is taken into account in the law itself.
Well, at least it's reasonable I suppose.

Well, at least it's reasonable I suppose.

You'll find a great many laws of this sort have that provision. America is, at its core, a capitalist economy built on small business. Just about every law of this kind that creates dictations on company behavior has an undue hardship provision of some sorts.