[blindlaw] nfb v. target

Mon Mar 16 03:55:31 UTC 2009

as far as web accessibility i hacvent mentioned it before, but io use the high contrast setting in microsofts disability setting on windows, the high contrast settings seeem to cause  ALOT of websites to have dificulties, somewebsites, hotmail  qwhich is microsots as well until recently, have alot of fiiculties. For instance hotmail use  to open the log in screen and the font would  end up so large that  not even half of a single letter would end up on a screen, they have fiixed that but alot of sites havent.Other sites while im usign the high contrast settinsd  alot of the images and buttopns wont load, for instance i rcently use freecreditreports.copm to get my three credit reports and the icons showing which redit report was each wouldnt show up. Who should i take this up wqioth? doe s anyoen have contact info fo rthe people at microsoft iwshould contact about this?

> From: jsorozco at gmail.com
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:11:48 -0400
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> 
> Angie,
> 
> Forgive the lack of clarification on my part. When I referred to nipping
> the problem in the bud and focusing on classrooms, I meant concentrating on
> students learning how to develop sites in the first place. Litigation is
> costly and can take years. By the time a settlement is achieved further
> down the road the landscape of web accessibility has changed to encompass
> issues that may not have been an issue in the original case. Packages like
> DreamWeaver are already offering features to increase accessibility. I
> simply believe it would behoove us to refocus our efforts at targeting the
> source of the evolving Internet rather than isolating a few companies at a
> time. I am not defending the lack of cooperation of some entities. I am
> saying our priorities should be laid out in such a way that maximizes the
> money the membership raises to make such litigation possible. On the same
> point about priorities, I believe a greater priority would have been our
> access to the disability department at the LSAC that goes beyond an e-mail
> address.
> 
> Bill,
> 
> No matter how minimal the task may be for the party on the other end, we are
> always going to be competing with the expansion of technology. You say it
> is not fair that blind people should have to develop special ways of gaining
> accessibility. I agree, but we already do this in everyday life. If we are
> gauging success on the elimination of special techniques we will forever be
> chasing the next barrier and the barrier after that. There is no such thing
> as simple service, because the Internet itself is not a simple domain. Up
> to a point it really is up to individuals to learn how to remain caught up
> with the latest methods of accessing the same information as sighted peers.
> Perhaps we could do more to stimulate a dialogue between adaptive technology
> companies and major software manufacturers.
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Is it true that the WCAG was last revised in 1999? Am I mistaken in my
> perception that Section 508 is singularly dealing with government agencies?
> These are genuine points of information I would like addressed so that I am
> explaining the situation accurately to other individuals. It would also
> help me better understand the role of these standards across the cases the
> organization has taken up. At first glance it would appear the documents
> are not fully accounting for the ever growing spectrum of Internet
> accessibility such as those elements introduced in the Web 2.0 era alone,
> but even if these documents are somehow written in such a way as to dictate
> every possible technological scenario imaginable, how do we begin to
> determine where the line of company responsibility ends and personal
> obligation begins. A blind person may very well have difficulty navigating
> even a web site that meets every standard imaginable. Can that person claim
> a wrong was committed because they themselves are incapable of navigating
> the site?
> 
> On that point, I believe a survey was supposedly distributed among
> prospective law students asking for feedback on their experience with the
> LSAC. I submitted a request for a copy of that survey and never received a
> response. My feelings aren't hurt that my input was not collected, but I
> would be curious to learn the results of said survey. What trends were
> discovered, and how did these patterns correspond to our general standard of
> pursuing formal action against a company? The organization may not be
> stumbling across web sites, finding them inaccessible and litigating the
> next day, but it's a hard case to prove when it seems we are in a continuous
> state of isolating one company after another. What have we achieved with
> each case? How, for example, has our work on the Target matter translated
> over to other major retailers and the Internet as a whole? How much has it
> cost to carry the Target case from beginning to present?
> 
> No, our small numbers does not give the majority the right to trample our
> rights. No one has argued to the contrary, but because we are smaller in
> numbers we should exercise prudence in how we exhaust time and money on the
> issue because web accessibility is not the only item on our radar. I would
> respectfully ask you in return that you allow time for these questions to be
> answered rather than encourage the subject off the list and increase the
> risk of ignorance among the membership.
> 
> James,
> 
> What I do not get is why the strength of the Jernigan Institute has not been
> exercised to provide training to companies and developers on what
> constitutes proper accessibility.
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I've made purchases on Target since 2005. I have never required sighted
> assistance, nor have I ever needed to call their telephone line to require
> assistance. I have never encountered an invisible button. Does this mean
> this invisible button does not exist? Certainly not, but I also did not
> think that one's web site viewing changed according to one's geography.
> Again, this is an educational point for me, because maybe different screen
> readers and different physical locations count for something.
> 
> Actually, that raises an interesting point because not all screen readers
> are built equally. Are we relying on a fixed level of screen reader
> capacity, or is my persistent request for common standards simply just too
> much.
> 
> In closing, I am not sympathetic to companies that do not cooperate with us
> when problems are found. I am saying that long-term strategies are
> necessary to deliver bigger impacts with our treasury. I enjoy a good fight
> as much as the next hawk, but in the oscillating arena of technology I
> believe there is a point where we have to assume the role of the educator
> and do more to bring about solutions at the foundation level rather than at
> the top where both sides are expending valuable resources on a case that
> could have been resolved a lot sooner.
> 
> Joe Orozco
> 
> "A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the
> crowd."--Max Lucado 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org 
> [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:11 AM
> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> 
> Scott, Joe etc.,
> 
> The question of the Target site has come up, and Joe says he 
> was able to use it. This very well could be true, as sometimes 
> everything went fine. However, there were instances when the 
> site put up on the screen a "purchase button" 
> that was totally invisible to screen
> readers. Unless you clicked it, you could not finalize your 
> purchase. It was not used for all purchases, but was for some. 
> I know as it happened to me. Unfortunately I do not live in 
> California.
> 
> Anyway, if Joe didn't go all the way to making a purchase, or 
> happened not to encounter the invisible button, then he would 
> think the site was accessible.
> 
> Dave
> 
> At 10:19 PM 3/14/2009, you wrote:
> >The standards used are those of WCAG and Sec. 
> >508. I did not work directly on Target and cannot tell you 
> exactly the 
> >access barriers. I can tell you that with respect to filing 
> >applications to law schools through LSAC on their website, it is 
> >impossible to fill those applications out independently using screen 
> >reading softaware. Let me also assure list members that we don't 
> >simply jump on a website, encounter difficulty, and then sue them the 
> >next day. A lawsuit is the last resort when the entity is not willing 
> >to deal with us otherwise. Just because we are a small minority does 
> >not mean that our right to the mainstream of society must always be 
> >subservient to the majority's unwillingness to consider us due to our 
> >small numbers. Unless someone has a new point to be made on this 
> >topic, I respectfully suggest that we move onto different 
> discussions. 
> >Let's also agree to disagree on certain points.
> >Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
> >
> >LaBarre Law Offices P.C.
> >1660 South Albion Street, Ste. 918
> >Denver, Colorado 80222
> >303 504-5979 (voice)
> >303 757-3640 (fax)
> >slabarre at labarrelaw.com (e-mail)
> >www.labarrelaw.com (website)
> >
> >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may contain confidential and 
> >privileged information. If you are not the designated recipient, you 
> >may not read, copy, distribute or retain this message.
> >If you received this message in error, please notify the 
> sender at 303) 
> >504-5979 or slabarre at labarrelaw.com, and destroy and delete it from 
> >your system. This message and any attachments are covered by the 
> >Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521.
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Orozco" <jsorozco at gmail.com>
> >To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 8:52 AM
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >
> >
> >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. 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? This method of engineering change gives us the 
> perception 
> >of a watchdog group. If this is what we have become, and given the 
> >small margin of the population we represent, I would rather 
> trigger change at the source rather than at the output.
> >
> >Joe Orozco
> >
> >"A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the 
> >crowd."--Max Lucado
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org
> >[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve P. Deeley
> >Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:24 AM
> >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >
> >That should not result in you receiving damages of almost $4,000.00.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <ckrugman at sbcglobal.net>
> >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:35 AM
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >
> >
> >As an individual I am insulted and damaged each time I am 
> discriminated 
> >by a business not accommodating my ability to access their 
> products and 
> >services, especially on the Internet when I have made sure that I have 
> >accommodated myself with the most up-to-date software to mitigate my 
> >needs as a blind person. I should not have to rely on sighted 
> >assistance to use a product or do without because the greedy 
> >corporations has chosen the most expedient road to sell their 
> products. 
> >I am also insulted that you are posting this question. I have in my 
> >life time been sold out by too many blind people that thought 
> they knew 
> >what I needed and I hope more companies will have to pay damages in 
> >these types of cases. Perhaps they will then learn how to meet the 
> >needs of all their customers. Fortunately here in California we have 
> >some laws with some teeth in them that are enforceable--although these 
> >teeth still need a good sharpening.
> >Chuck
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve P. 
> >Deeley" <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
> >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 6:22 PM
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >
> >
> >That is a lawyer talking who makes his living in rediculous situations 
> >like this one. Again, you show me how an individual was damaged and 
> >out $4,000.00.
> >Steve
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott C. 
> >LaBarre" <slabarre at labarrelaw.com>
> >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:38 PM
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >
> >
> >Violation of civil rights has long been recognized as a form of 
> >compensible legal damage as well it should be.
> >Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
> >
> >LaBarre Law Offices P.C.
> >1660 South Albion Street, Ste. 918
> >Denver, Colorado 80222
> >303 504-5979 (voice)
> >303 757-3640 (fax)
> >slabarre at labarrelaw.com (e-mail)
> >www.labarrelaw.com (website)
> >
> >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may contain confidential and 
> >privileged information. If you are not the designated recipient, you 
> >may not read, copy, distribute or retain this message. If you received 
> >this message in error, please notify the sender at 303) 504-5979 or 
> >slabarre at labarrelaw.com, and destroy and delete it from your system. 
> >This message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic 
> >Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521.
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve P. 
> >Deeley" <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
> >To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >
> >
> >>This is ridiculous! How were these people damaged?
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mehgan Sidhu" <ms at browngold.com>
> >>To: <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> >>Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:20 PM
> >>Subject: [blindlaw] nfb v. target
> >>
> >>
> >>>To answer the recent questions posted about the Target case,
> >the final
> >>>settlement hearing took place on March 9th. I understand from our 
> >>>counsel in California, Larry Paradis of DRA and Josh
> >Konecky, that there
> >>>were no objectors and the Judge was pleased with the
> >resolution of the
> >>>case. The settlement is not fully "final" until the time for any
> >>>appeals has run - which is about 30 days. Given there were
> >no objectors,
> >>>it is highly unlikely that any appeals will be filed. The
> >judge has not
> >>>yet made a ruling on attorneys fees, but that will not hold up 
> >>>enforcement of the settlement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As for disbursements, assuming there are no appeals, the claims 
> >>>administer has 45 days from the final approval date to
> >disburse funds to
> >>>claimants. I do not know the final tally of approved
> >claimants, though I
> >>>think there were several hundred. I will pass that 
> information along 
> >>>when I have it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>We will now be working on enforcing the settlement commitments that 
> >>>Target made with respect to the accessibility of the website.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Mehgan Sidhu
> >>>Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
> >>>120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 
> >>>410-962-1030 x1324
> >>>410-385-0869 (fax)
> >>>ms at browngold.com<mailto:ms at browngold.com>
> >>>www.browngold.com<http://www.browngold.com/>
> >>>
> >>>Confidentiality Notice
> >>>
> >>>This e-mail may contain confidential information that may
> >also be legally
> >>>privileged and that is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) 
> >>>named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized 
> >>>agent of the recipient, please be advised that any dissemination or 
> >>>copying of this e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance on the 
> >>>information contained herein, is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> >>>received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately
> >by use of the
> >>>reply button, and then delete the e-mail from your system.
> >Thank you!
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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/stevep
> >.deeley%40insightbb.com
> >>
> >>
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >----------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release
> >Date: 03/13/09
> >>05:59:00
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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/slabar
> >re%40labarrelaw.com
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/stevep
> >.deeley%40insightbb.com
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >----------------
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release
> >Date: 03/13/09
> >05:59:00
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/ckrugm
> >an%40sbcglobal.net
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/stevep
> >.deeley%40insightbb.com
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >----------------
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release
> >Date: 03/13/09
> >05:59:00
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/jsoroz
> >co%40gmail.com
> >
> >
> >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
> >signature database 3936 (20090313) __________
> >
> >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> >http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
> >signature database 3936 (20090313) __________
> >
> >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> >http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/slabarre%40la
> >barrelaw.com
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/dandrews%40vi
> >si.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/jsoroz
> co%40gmail.com
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of 
> virus signature database 3936 (20090313) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 3937 (20090314) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009