Main > Everything Else

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

<< < (17/33) > >>

ChadTower:

The complaint is that it is coded in such a way that blind assistance software packages are unable to reasonably translate it into something the blind can use.  Basically, it's too complex for the blind packages to handle.

Dartful Dodger:

--- Quote from: shmokes on October 04, 2007, 01:33:34 pm ---
Target's website is not their product and you know it.  They do not sell you their website. 
--- End quote ---

There's a restaurant down south that sells hamburgers.

The restaurant itself is not their product. They do not sell their restaurant. 

Maybe after shmokes gets his law degree he can defend the restaurant's low quality service to its black customers.

ChadTower:

Being black is not covered by the ADA.

leapinlew:
Could youtube be sued because it doesn't offer close caption? Could video game manufacturers be sued because they don't make racing games accessible to people without feet?

shmokes:
leap,

You are really having trouble with this.  Products are not required to be ADA compliant.  They just aren't.  Target has to have ramps for legless people.  They don't have to stop selling shoes.  People can be sued for failing to comply with the law.  ADA says that retailers have to provide blind people with equal access to their facilities and services. 

Are videogame manufacturers retailers?

No.

Are racing games facilities or services?

No.  (Don't argue.  They really and truly aren't.  Take some business courses if you don't believe me.  Or forget about it since the law wouldn't apply to them even if videogames were services).

The YouTube thing is also a "no", but that question is at least somewhat reasonable.  While YouTube's videos would still probably count as a product more than anything else, Closed Captioning is dealt with in a different section of ADA.  From very briefly skimming the law, it looks like only televised public service announcements are required to have closed captioning, and the stations are not even required to provide the captioning.  The law requires the government to provide the captioning along with the public service announcement, so if the station gets the announcement without the captions, they can run it without the captions.

Anyway, a business only has to make reasonable accomodations.  If providing the accommodations would cost $10 million dollars, or put the company out of business, they won't be required to do it.  Obviously a company like YouTube, that allows users to upload homemade content could not go through and add closed captions to all the videos that get uploaded on a daily basis.

leapinlew, does it occur to you that maybe the reason you can't seem to come up with a ridiculous example that actually works here, is that the present case isn't actually ridiculous?  Just a thought.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version