|
|
Posted by Relayer on 10/03/07 23:37
On Oct 3, 4:25?pm, "Six String Stu" <hawkinn...@nccray.net> wrote:
> "Relayer" <relayer...@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:
>
> 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?
And that prevents him from accessing the TRU website and applying for
a job?
No.
> 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.?
And that prevents him from accessing the TRU website and applying for
a job?
No.
> 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?
You dont need a mouse for a website. It works with a tab and return
key. You can apply without a mous on their site. I tried it.
> 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".
huh? LOL
>
>
>
> > 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.
And each have certain physical requirements. I would assume someone
legally blind could not be watching the security camera's. Someone
agoraphobic could not have an office job. Someone deaf and dumb could
not answer the phone. My point was if the guy "was" blind, he wouldnt
qualify for a retail floor position. He would however, if he was
wheelchair bound and I am pretty sure TRU wouldnt have a problem
hiring that person.
>
> 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".
Why wouldnt braille help? You are blind. Regardless if you use it on a
daily basis, if in the event your blindness is progressive, it might
be a good idea to learn it. But you have other issues like seizures
and stuff..I am talking about the blind in general though..( I
know..no cookie cutter blind people). I see blind people everyday
(seriously) and they do very well considering..better than I would do
if in their situation, but they would never be hired at TRU for
anything that actually required someone be able to see..
>
> > 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 :-)-
:-P
[Back to original message]
|