Posted by Six String Stu on 10/03/07 21:25

"Relayer" <relayer101@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1191442944.834142.168240@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> 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)
Well being not able to think of any other reason a web site could be
inaccessable is disregarding some other disabling conditions. Not allways
sight.
What's that guy in the wheel chair with the brilant brain that speaks
through a laptop?
Mobility can even be differnt. Just to throw a bit more sand in the fan (but
to make a point) what if a person had become agorophobic after having her
face tradically scarred. Could not function within close visual contact of
other members in society.?
BUT this person could take online orders and process sales down the line,
had the ability to spend lots of hours servicing customer requests and
keeping the gears of capitoism turning. Yet couldnt telecommute to the
initial interview that would set up the work from home agreement?
Or possibly the person is tied to keyboard use only and does not use a
mouse?


It's not all about screen readers and text to speach engines or alt text
comments behind web images.
And it has been my observation that even in the light of knowing what the
impairment was and the way the discrimination took place , nothing would
prevent some folks from proving how little is comphrehended despite all of
that which in "known".

>
> It was suggested he actually go to the store (which is the only thing
> legally required to be accessible) and apply for the job (and if
> blind, would have a hard time actually performing the required work
> there).

Again there are some jobs which the public does not have contact with. Most
of these big stores have an office. And office workers. Answering phones,
running a help desk, watching security monitors et cetera.
>
> 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.
>
> Stu, you are legally blind. Do you think you could run around a Toy's
> R Us and find the newest "My Pretty Pony" the mother with 6 kids in
> tow is trying to find, while 6 other people are trying to return their
> lead paint toys and you need to do a price check on the latest Hot
> Wheels '67 Camero (all toys that do NOT have braille?)
>
Well Braille wouldn't help me a bit. I am legally blind. But you wouldn't
suspect it untill I told you. That has a lot less to do with my having
overcome the loss of sight and adjusting/ compensating to my disability, and
more to how often it's the sighted folk take thier own vision for granted.
There are many forms, types and manifestations of limited vision. It's
confusing unless you have a doctorette or "livin with it education".

> How would you handle it if you couldnt read the packaging. Sue Mattel
> because their Hot Wheels are not handicapped accessible? Or Toys R Us
> because they stock toys like that (which by the way, are almost all
> toys)?
>
Rhetorical question, good I'm not required to answer those :-)

[Back to original message]