[blindlaw] Court rules Target must make websiteaccessibletotheblind

[Everett Zufelt]

Good morning,

This is a very interesting discussion, and I believe you are correct.  For 
myself, I believe the question needs to be: how much expertise should a 
blind computer user be expected to possess in order to access a web-site. 
Clearly it would be unexceptable to expect everyone to be a computer expert; 
however, a certain level of proficiency is required of a blind or visually 
impaired user to interact with a web-site, in the same way that a certain 
amount of general computer and Internet navigation proficiency is expected 
of a sighted user.  This answer, I believe, will be difficult to agree upon 
and will probably end up looking like a statistic.  The problem still 
remains, however, in trying to find out what percentage of blind or visually 
impaired users experience difficulty accessing a site and the result will 
likely be the squeeky web-site getting the greese.

Everett


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rumpole" <Rumpole at gwi.net>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Court rules Target must make 
websiteaccessibletotheblind


>I would have to agree, the 9th is known for being like that. But a start is
> a start - lets hope that it goes forward to a good conclusion for all
> disabled shoppers.
> In my time as a technology consultant I did notice a trend of note and
> relevance here though.
> The blind and visually impaired  computer users who are what you may
> describe as "high end users" tend to be those who can use the 
> accessibility
> aspects of a web site, even if they are pretty much minimal to most
> "average" users. If you will forgive the labeling there.
> So, yes, I have no trouble understanding that a good defense council can
> find some blind and visually impaired computer users to demonstrated that
> they can, in fact use the site. Hence it is accessible to the finder of
> fact.
> Thus I would prepare for this pre-trial with a percentage  agrument as a
> small part of it all. I have little doubt that something like this has 
> been
> done in some way and I would like to know how well it will work out in the
> end.
> I recall quite clearly one individual a few years back pointing out to me
> that not everyone is a "power user" and well versed in using their
> particular screen reader as those who have been lucky enough to have 
> access
> to things as I have. Her point was that there are those who are just 
> average
> and find that many many web sites need to be "clubbed into submission" by
> them. Her assertion being that the average users far outnumber the power
> users.
> This is a point that can certainly be made in this case and again, it
> probably is being made.
>  So - I would put the following question to those on this list: "If a web
> site is usable by high-end computer users, is it "accessible under the
> theory put forth by defense council, or is it "accessible if "average" 
> users
> can access it?"
> Being a former techy, I argue the latter and assert that the former can
> always be demonstrated by those who live and breath little more than
> computers daily. Those of us who are average lack the expertise to take
> advantage of the site's accessibility.
> Do only the "high end users" of non-adaptive equipped computers regularly
> use the site or is the site aimed at the average user?
> Yes, my question suggests the desired answer. But then again, I'm not in
> court right now. Just stating my view on a legal issue.
> What do others think?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kathleen Hagen" <khagen12 at earthlink.net>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Court rules Target must make website
> accessibletotheblind
>
>
>> And these appeals are likely to start with Target, although the 9th
> circuit
>> is still fairly liberal.
>> Kathy
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Rumpole" <Rumpole at gwi.net>
>> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Court rules Target must make website accessible
>> totheblind
>>
>>
>> > Well done, and well put Mazen. Good quotation from the article:
>> >    Explaining the ramification of the ruling, Mazen M. Basrawi, Equal
>> > Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates, noted that: "the
>> > court
>> > clarified that the law requires that any place of public accommodation
> is
>> > required to ensure that it does not discriminate when it uses the
> internet
>> > as a means to enhance the services it offers at a physical location."
>> >
>> > I think that the effect of the ruling is exactly why this will be 
>> > fought
>> > hard by other retailers across the country - appeals will abound on 
>> > this
>> > topic?
>> >
>> > Speaking strictly for myself, online shopping sure would make my life
>> > easier
>> > as the Christmas shopping season approaches.
>> > I'm going to pull this case up and read it through - I'd really like to
>> > know
>> > more about it.
>> >
>> > Ross A. Doerr Esquire
>> >
>> > Today's definition is drawn from "The Devil's Dictionary" by: Ambrose
>> > Bierce.
>> >
>> > "Cynic: N. A blaggard who insists on seeing things as they really are
>> > instead of how they ought to be. Hence the custom among the ancient
>> > Cythians
>> > of plucking out the eyes of a Cynic to improve his vision."
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > blindlaw mailing list
>> > blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw