[blindlaw] Court rules Target must makewebsiteaccessibletotheblind

Sun Sep 10 10:44:02 CDT 2006

Everett and Kathy:

Excellent points, I agree with both of you on those issues.
>From a "Trial practice techniques" standpoint, it sure would be an excellent
exercise in advocacy to the jury, wouldn't it? In my opinion, it calls for
some realy creative thinking with unique insight into the disabled adaptive
technology field to make the point to a non-disabled jury.
Does anyone happen to know or have a good guess on how plaintiff's council
is approaching it?

Ross A. Doerr Esquire
 Thought for the day:
"Success is that feeling that I have between the time I do something good,
and when I tel my wife what it is that I did"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Everett Zufelt" <everett at zufelt.ca>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Court rules Target must
makewebsiteaccessibletotheblind

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>