Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/03/07 20:49

Relayer wrote:
> On Oct 3, 12:20?pm, "Six String Stu" <hawkinn...@nccray.net> wrote:
>> "Relayer" <relayer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191424256.902076.108650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 9:42?am, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Relayer wrote:
>>>>> If he can't see the screen, then he needs to actually GO to Toys R Us
>>>>> and apply.
>>>> You evidently know nothing about how blind people use the Internet or
>>>> about Web accessibility. There is nothing preventing Toys R Us from
>>>> making their website accessible.
>>> Again, if he can't GET to Toys R Us to apply for a job, how the hell
>>> can he work there doorknob?
>>> It's these bullshit egregious lawsuits that make being disabled
>>> difficult for everyone. Toy's R Us are under no obligation to hire
>>> someone who is blind nor make their website acceeible to an applicant
>>> who is. Their stores, where jobs are also applied for, as handicapped
>>> accessible. It would be nice but they are under no legal obligation
>>> as of yet to do so.
>> Then you had better read up on the "equal accomidation" laws before starting
>> up any business.
>> Places of business that serve the public DO have to make thier services
>> accessible to the disabled. It's the law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In addition, the Target suit is regarding shopping, not employment,
>>> which is a WHOLE different animal.
>>> And the Target suit is certainly not a winnable case. Again, just BS
>>> lawsuits from people looking for money for doing nothing.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Stu, first off, I have owned my own business.
>
> Second, I have run a number of companies.
>
> Third, we are not talking accessability or accomidation here. (I
> actually think I had a typo there..I said Toys R Us is
> accessible..their web site might not be)
>
> The OP complained and wants to sue because their website is not usable
> by disabled people (so we all assume he is blind..as I cant think of
> another reason why it's not usable)

Obviously my earlier messages have gone in one eye and out the other.

Websites can be inaccessible to:

* The mobility impaired, such as people lacking the dexterity necessary
for using a mouse, when a website provides functionality available only
via mouse movements and clicks.

* The deaf, when instructions are provided through audio only, or when
audio cues are provided to convey feedback that isn't also provided in
another fashion.

* People with *poor* eyesight, who can't read the text on the Toys R Us
and who can't make it larger because the font size is set, for some
reason, at a fixed number of pixels.

* People who are color blind, when color alone is used to provide
substantive information, such as when a chart contains bars or lines
distinguished only by color, leaving the user unable to tell which bar
or line goes with each item in the key; or when a website for an
airline, on its seat selection page, distinguishes available seats from
unavailable seats only by coloring them green and red, respectively.

* People with reading disabilities, when websites present information in
scrolling form, or a bit at a time in slide show form with the slides
advancing automatically and with no way for the user to freeze each
slide until he has finished reading it.

> It was suggested he actually go to the store (which is the only thing
> legally required to be accessible)

You have no basis for this assertion.

> and apply for the job (and if
> blind, would have a hard time actually performing the required work
> there).
>
> Has nothing to do with a business being accessible, as most are. In
> fact, it's rare now to find one that isn't, so people are running out
> of people to sue.

If a business runs a website as part of its operation, then that *is*
part of the business, and if it isn't accessible, that means that the
business is not completely accessible.

[Back to original message]