[blindlaw] nfb v. target

Sun Mar 15 07:52:09 UTC 2009

those are probably the same questions that they ask all applicants. By 
asking everyone the same questions the interviewer is protecting himself and 
the organization for which he is interviewing from potential problems down 
the road.
Chuck
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Shaw" <timandvickie at hotmail.com>
To: <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target

heh the skills of blindness;) i had a job interview to be a rehabilitation 
teacher for the blind on Thursdfday and all the interview questions were 
like "what is a goal a blind person might set for themselves" and "what are 
some things a blind person could use to aide them in their every day living" 
it was like really are you asking me, a blind person, these questions lol.

> From: bspiry at comcast.net
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:21:49 -0700
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/timandvickie%40hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MSGTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme
_______________________________________________
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/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net 