Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/03/07 16:31

DrFeelgoodWA wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in
> message news:5mhnveFdf75iU1@mid.individual.net...
>> They should exert the effort to make their website accessible to the
>> disabled. It isn't hard. It's much more a matter of knowing what
>> *not* to do (using color distinctions as the sole means of
>> communicating substantive information; providing access to functions
>> only through an image with a Javascript onclick handler so that they
>> can't be accessed via the keyboard; using absolute font sizes) than
>> of knowing what to do (provide ALT text to communicate the same
>> information conveyed by images). Many websites are accessible.
>
> Hey asshole, I'm disabled, low income and have no problem accessing
> the TRU website.

Then it's interesting that you think proposing that facilities make
simple changes to promote accessibility makes somebody an asshole. If I
held a door open for you, would you punch me in the nose?

> They are not required nor should they be required to
> make their web site accessable to lawsuit happy jackasses with zero
> chance of employment by them or any other business.

Evidently the law may require this, and the courts will determine it, so
based on what are you declaring in such an absolute manner that they
aren't so required?

>
>
>>> I hate to burst your bubble but even the OP can apply on line.
>>> Public libraries provide internet service and will gladly supply a
>>> real live person to assist a disabled person fill out online forms.
>> Whereas non-disabled people don't have to haul all the way to the
>> library to be able to fill out a form. That's the point.
>
> No it's not the point. The point is some jackass that never intends to
> work a day the rest of his life wants to collect large sums of cash
> for not working because he is to stupid to fill out an online job
> application.

Weren't you the one accusing *me* of being psychic? You aren't arguing
with the OP. You're arguing with a straw man you've set up in your mind.

>
>
>>> Lawsuit happy dip-shits are abundant in our society and the cause
>>> of no small amount of harm to the rest of us. Face it he wants to
>>> file a lawsuit over a job he probably couldn't do if hired.
>> You think the disabled don't have jobs? How would you know what job
>> he would have applied for and whether he'd be able to do it? It's
>> easy to scoff when you allow yourself to imagine what the situation
>> "probably" is and then assume that it really is that way.
>
> It's easy to say he is capable and willing to do any job when you
> don't know him or his situation at all?

No, I'm saying that you don't know that he *can't*. Do you understand
the distinction?

> FYI TRU is a store that actively seeks and employes disabled people.

Good to know.
>
>>> I'll be happy to testify on behalf of TRU should such lawsuit be
>>> filed in my area.
>> What kind of testimony do you imagine yourself to have to offer that
>> would be of value in their case? From your off-the-cuff reaction,
>> it's evident that you have little background on the subject.
>
> For one; Being low income disabled I could testify how easy it was
> for me to access their website job application.

That's different. Your implication was that you were going to testify on
how it didn't matter that the application *wasn't* accessible, which was
the issue being discussed at the time. As I've already indicated in
other messages, I agree with you that the site is *close* to accessible.
It's keyboard accessible, and it's even more accessible to the fully
blind, who will use a screen reader, than it is to those needing the
text to be enlarged.
>
> And two; I could testify how my local TRU stores actively employ
> disabled people.

That would serve no purpose. If discrimination is found in one practice,
it doesn't save the company that it doesn't have to discriminate in
other practices.

> Being disabled myself I'm sure any jury would eat up my testimony.

Does it occur to you that there would be disabled people testifying on
the other side.

[Back to original message]