Main > Everything Else

Blind people sue Target because they can't access Target's website.

<< < (9/33) > >>

leapinlew:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on October 03, 2007, 03:36:05 pm ---
The question here, of course, is whether or not there is precedent for such commercial facilities extending to a website.  They are not refusing to accommodate blind people - the store are all fully accommodating.  The website may or may not be depending on whether or not accommodation is even defined for commercial websites.  So it doesn't make it easy for some blind assisting software packages - does that constitute nonaccommodation in the eyes of the law and is the website legally required to be so?

--- End quote ---
:applaud: exactly.

If this suit is lost, I suppose they can then try to sue the software package that cannot read their website properly. Either way, someone is getting sued.

Ed_McCarron:
Man, if thats the case, and I'm target, I'd put instructions on the site (where their software can find it to read) that state if you are blind, get a sighted person to help you.

There.  I've accommodated the blind.  I've offered a perfectly reasonable way for them to navigate my site.

I've got a buddy who is colorblind.  Hes got a helper app that converts colored text on webpages to italic, bold, underline, etc, etc so he can tell whats different colors.  It chokes on graphics.  He's not running around suing people.

Dartful Dodger:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on October 03, 2007, 03:14:35 pm ---
Target is already my primary store and this will have no effect on that.

--- End quote ---

Target is only concerned about how this is going to effect their profit.

My guess is the majority of people who are against this lawsuit, will still shop where they’ve always shopped.

It’s the ones that sympathize with this lawsuit that will force target to rebuild their webpage.

By being a loyal customer your helping to pay for the redesign.

Rolex doesn't need your (lack of money), so they won't change.

shmokes:
There's quite a bit of caselaw already in place.

Here's a link to the trial court decision.  Coincidentally (see my previous post), it is only a hearing on Target's motion to dismiss for failure to state a case.  The court denied the motion, which means that it will go to trial and the blindies get to present evidence to a jury.  The opinion is REALLY well written and reasoned. 

It's worth noting, if you decide to read it, that in the opinion the judge says that when the ADA refers to a public place, they are talking about a physical location.  Keep in mind that this is a trial court judge.  He is REQUIRED to say this because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal has defined it that way in previous cases and he is bound by their rulings.  Other circuits, on the other hand, have said exactly the opposite, i.e., that it includes electronic spaces such as websites.  The court didn't deny because ADA prohibits discrimination with regards to any services OF the store, not IN the store, and the arguments are that the website is a service of the store, and that lack of access to the website hinders full/equal enjoyment of the stuff in the store (as in Target intends for you to be able to look up information and prices online, and then come into the store to make your purchase if you want).  But, once this case goes beyond the trial court, the previous 9th Circuit definition of the ADA's "public spaces" phrase is no longer binding, and if it then goes to the Supreme Court, it's not even particularly persuasive.

One last thing for whoever said that Target's website seemed pretty accessible . . . This suit began in January, 2006.  My guess is that at some point in the last year and a half Target decided to go ahead and make their site ADA compliant.

leapinlew:

--- Quote from: Dartful Dodger on October 03, 2007, 04:28:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: ChadTower on October 03, 2007, 03:14:35 pm ---
Target is already my primary store and this will have no effect on that.

--- End quote ---

Target is only concerned about how this is going to effect their profit.

My guess is the majority of people who are against this lawsuit, will still shop where they’ve always shopped.

It’s the ones that sympathize with this lawsuit that will force target to rebuild their webpage.

By being a loyal customer your helping to pay for the redesign.

Rolex doesn't need your (lack of money), so they won't change.


--- End quote ---

Also, the sun will rise tomorrow.

I mean, come on. What your saying is obvious. Whats target going to do? Take a stance and not provide web pages for the blind?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version