[blindlaw] nfb v. target

[Bill Spiry]

I completely agree with Angie's perspective on this. The reality is that if
a blind person is able to navigate the internet and get to the site of a
retailer, that blind person likely already has a higher skill level with the
computer, out of simple necessity, than the average sighted person who
simply uses their PC to browse the web, do some shopping and send a few
emails.  We will never be free of the necessity to learn the skills of
blindness in order to live "normal" lives, but by God we should not be
required to developed specialized technical and functional skills in order
to use simple services and enjoy privledges when those services and
privledges can be made accessible with limited cost and effort. 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Angie Matney
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:15 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target

Joe asked:

>What troubles me is that my question of accessibility standards has not
been
>answered on the other case against the LSAC.  The same question is
>applicable here.  What standard was used to conclude that the web site was
>not accessible?  I do not claim to be a genius at manipulating technology
to
>serve my needs, but I did not have to try hard at all to make Target give
me
>what I needed between 2005 and 2008.  

I can't compare the relative accessibility of the Target site to the LSAC
site because I haven't attempted to shop at Target's site. But the LSAC site
is inaccessible to every person who uses JAWS as their sole  means of
accessing the internet. 
(At least, this was the case when I applied to law schools in the fall of
2005.) Perhaps I overestimate my own abilities, but I feel pretty confident
in saying that I can get just about any marginally accessible site to do
what I want. But I could not 
apply to law school without the aid of multiple friends who served as
readers. In fall, 2005, the application forms used by LSAC were not
accessible with JAWS. I believe I was able to enter information into the
"general" form, which then 
populated each application form with my personal data. But the specific
application forms didn't speak. 

So is the problem the web site layout,
>or is it our own technology training?  Rather than chase every entity with
>features a few people deem inaccessible, would it not be prudent to take
our
>standards, whatever those may be, to the classroom, to the software
>developers, the relevant associations raising the performance standards of
>its students and members?  

Possibly. But on the other hand, why should blind people have to be
especially proficient computer users to access things like a retail web
site? There will always be people who, for whatever reason, do not have the
opportunity to receive the 
kind of training you're talking about. There will be others who, regardless
of training, possess less intuition about how to operate a screen reader in
unfamiliar circumstances. I'm not suggesting that web site developers should
assume zero 
training on the part of the end user; but relying on extensive training to
guarantee accessibility automatically means some people will be excluded.

This reminds me of an experience I had a few months back. I was flying to
Boston to visit a friend, and I wanted to reserve window seats. I was
presented with an image map that seemed to give me this opportunity. I
thought about how best to 
approach the thing, made an educated guess about what to do, and
successfully reserved the seats I wanted. (The gate agent later happily
informed me that he'd gone ahead and moved me to bulkhead seating because of
my dog. I told him 
I wanted my chosen seat. He refused, claiming regs required him to put me
there. Fortunately the flight attendant let me have the seat I'd worked so
hard to reserve. I wish I'd filed a formal complaint about that...But I
digress.) I later heard a 
blind friend, who is also quite proficient with access technology,
characterize what I assume was a similar site (possibly even the same
airline site) as inaccessible. I personally don't believe that the fact that
I was able to figure this out makes 
the site accessible. A sighted user would not have to work nearly so hard to
reserve a seat on a flight.

There will always be some people who are intimidated by the internet in
general. These individuals will have trouble accessing the basic features of
many web sites. (My dad is one such person, and he's not blind.) But if
reasonably proficient 
blind computer users can't access a site, I think it's perfectly reasonable
to insist on modifications. We don't want an internet that is only
accessible to those of us who have had the most opportunities.

JMO,

Angie






_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/bspiry%40comcast.n
et