[blindlaw] Court rules Target mustmakewebsiteaccessibletotheblind

Dennis Clark dennisgclark at sbcglobal.net
Sun Sep 10 15:38:05 CDT 2006 

Hello Ross and all,
I am confident that this case will never reach a jury.  The judge has sent a 
message to both sides that they could lose at trial, and he will now strong 
arm both sides to settle.  Unfortunately,  such a settlement will force only 
the Target web site to be made accessible.  The only winners will be the 
plaintiff's law firm which will receive a large check for attorney's fees, 
and of course the blind people who want to shop on the Target web site.  I 
think that as blind lawyers we need to make it clear to the lawyers who 
choose to represent our causes, that we have no interest in settlements. 
This was the position of the courageous attorneys who represented other 
minority groups, and that is why they have legal precedents on their side as 
opposed to meaningless settlements.  This is just one lawyers opinion.
Dennis

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rumpole" <Rumpole at gwi.net>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Court rules Target 
mustmakewebsiteaccessibletotheblind


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

More information about the blindlaw mailing list