[Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THEBLIND BYFAILINGTOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
David Evans
drevans at bellsouth.net
Mon Jan 16 17:38:42 UTC 2012
Dear Mike,
The ADA strictly forbids a person from charging a fee for someone who uses a
service animal. They can only charge for damages actually done
to property and not what the animal "might" do.
specific protections were placed in the ADA to prevent Businesses and people
from discriminating against guide dog users in a "round about way" by
charging them fees to discourage GD users or to get a fee for nothing.
Other places, such as restaurants, commonly try to tell us that it is
against the local Health Code Laws for the dog to come in their place, but
the ADA is a federal civil Rights Law and Federal trumps State or Local laws
or regulation .
As for Red Box, they are offering a service to the Public, just like any
store by inviting the Public in, they must comply with ADA.
Just like a physical store, They are in the wrong if they make the doors so
small that some one in a wheelchair can not get in or some one who is fat,
so it is discrimination for them to use a technology that does not allow
Blind people to access their services that other people can access through
the benefit of sight.
If we do not push on the limits of the envelop now, then we will
increasingly find ourselves effectively locked out of more and more things,
just because no one pushes back.
I use alternative techniques every day in my job. It is we that must define
the access models that we can use and drive the issue or others will surely
define it for us and we will be stuck with what they give us or are willing
to give us out of the goodness of their hearts.
If the Public is invited to use a place or service, it will likely fall
under the ADA and we must speak up now or be left in the dust of history.
The Blind were mostly left out of the ADA regulations and standards because
some Blind people and organizations paid little attention to it and it's
crafting. We sat silent as others drew up the ADA, mostly concentrating on
the physical access for those in wheelchairs. We missed the boat and never
got an oar in the water until after it was passed and signed back in 1990.
If we had, business and the government would have been allot more "blind
friendly" today than they are. Here it is 21 years after the signing of the
ADA and even my own state of Florida still does not have its State web site
fully accessible to it's citizens or employees. Blind supervisors, that
work for the state still have to get one of their sighted workers to put in
their work hours for them in order to get paid and to pay their people.
Access to the web site is still limited to the blind and the state has known
about this issue for over 20 years.
The fixes are known and available, but the state still does not require all
contracts to mandate access for us when the state buys new software programs
and equipment and we get stuck in jobs we can not do for lack of access, no
promotions because we can not do what our other sighted counterparts can do,
because of lack of independent access and blind citizens can not access the
goods and services their tax dollars are being taken for. It is not fair,
it is damdable and it is unequal.
We have made the argument for ATM machines with the banks, and won, so why
not this? We should be able to use Red Box ourselves and not need to have
someone sighted do it for us. We should be able to keep all of our
information and transactions private and confidential, if we want.
Alternative techniques are for the most part are , meant as "work around",
to having the direct access that vision provides the sighted. They are all
good, but there is a difference and they can not always be as effective or
as useful to us.
Touch screens and their use are becoming more and more common today.
Dials and switches and raised buttons are being totally replaced by touch
screens and Pezos electric ceramic switches such as the flat button displays
on microwaves and the like. Every kind of appliance are being increasingly
equipped with them.
Unless tactilely marked, they are impossible or difficult for the blind to
use and as more and more information is required to be inputted into these
machines, the menus become impossible to use by us.
If Apple can incorporate "talking touch screen" access into all of their
products, then so can other businesses, Red Box is no exception.
We have case law behind us with the ATM companies and with Target and
others. So far the Law has sided with us in most cases, the only exception
being the Las Vegas airport kiosk, but I think that even that will be turned
our way soon.
The ADA also demands that as new technologies come along that older ones be
replaced. We will see things change, it will just take some time, money and
some pushing on the envelop.
David Evans, NFBF and GD Jack.
Past Chair, ADA Advisory Board, Palm Beach County Florida
Retired Nuclear/Aerospace Materials Engineer
Builder of the Lunar Rovers and the F-117 Stealth Fighter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: <gwunder at earthlink.net>; "'Blind Talk Mailing List'"
<blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THEBLIND
BYFAILINGTOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
Gary:
You initially left out the alternative of using a reader. I still consider
that a viable alternative in many instances though, as you point out, not
all. And I think it can be equally argued that such things as higher fares
are just part of the cost of doing business as a blind person; no one ever
said blindness wasn't a nuisance. A similar thing happens when one uses a
guide dog and must rent an apartment. While one can argue that charging a
pet deposit for a guide dog is and should be illegal, I know one former dog
guide owner who strongly felt that he should pay the pet deposit and that
this was just part of the cost of doing business as a blind person who chose
to use a guide dog.
In other words, when is something just one of the nuisances of blindness and
when is it truly discriminatory? In my own mind, while I might grumble, I
believe the higher fares from using telephone personnel to make reservations
might well just be a cost of doing business as a blind person. However,
requiring us to make arrangements 24 hours in advance and segregating our
seating because we don't get the "letter" seats truly is discriminatory
because it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual burden Southwest
incurs by carrying a blind person which, in reality, is no different than
that incurred carrying a sighted person.
You may see this as nit-picking. But of such nits are both a philosophy of
blindness and legal precedent made.
Also, let me hasten to add that this is a different issue from inaccessible
home appliances or office equipment as it is also different from the issue
of those ever-changing keycard or credit card interfaces that was recently
written of on the R&D Committee list. Those are true threats!
Your point is well-taken that we try to negotiate and work out something
reasonable long before we ever sue. Perhaps we don't publicize this enough.
But often parties to the negotiations don't want publicity until an
agreement is reached if that's possible.
Perhaps the Monitor should do a case study of an issue wherein negotiations
were tried and failed leading to suit or, perhaps, in which negotiations
were successful, obviating the need for a lawsuit. And no; I'm not
volunteering to write such an article. (huge grin)
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Gary Wunder
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 6:52 PM
To: 'Blind Talk Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND
BYFAILINGTOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
One problem, of course, is that these devices are offered as an alternative
to hiring personnel to talk with us and help us make choices. If there is no
way for us to do a thing, there is no discrimination, but if a device can be
made accessible but simply is not, then we allow our own exclusion by not
trying to press for equal access.
I think there is one other point here. I've never seen a Federation action
commenced in court where first a negotiated settlement wasn't tried and
tried and tried. It is often accepted that our society is lawsuit happy, but
my experience, at least as far as we are concerned, is that the suit is the
last chance we have to make a difference. We didn't start by suing AOL or
Target or the National Council of Bar Examiners. There were clear efforts to
get the attention of their brass and often our work at making contact was
met with the determined resolution to keep us away from anyone who could
make a decision. Even in the case of the car companies and cars too quiet to
hear, we were not initially welcomed by the companies with open arms. They
used their PR people to keep us away from their technicians, their managers,
and their sound experts. Had we not worked on a law, we would not have had
the chance to build the relationships that lead to it. Equally true is that
if we were simply sue happy, we'd have filed suit and still be litigating,
rather than working on implementing regulations to make our travel safer.
I hate war, but I recognize that a country that openly commits it will never
go to war has told his would-be aggressors they will find easy victory.
One last thought. What I can usually accept as a reasonable accommodation by
relying on another person soon becomes unworkable. Airlines are a good
example. Electronic ticket purchasing was at first a convenience. Now listen
on the phone and learn that there are special fares available only for those
who check-in online. Look at the studies and find how infrequently blind
travelers, even when they say they are blind and cannot use the online
systems, are offered fares higher than those available online. Look at the
seating policy on Southwest where we are "invited" to check-in 24 hours
ahead of our flight, but if you don't do that, you are not in the
preferential boarding group they designate with letters. At this point my
alternative technique isn't much of an alternative so I start pressing for
an accessible website. The service that starts only as entertainment soon
becomes part of a homework assignment for school and a way to distribute
educational materials on the job. The distinction between what is
entertainment and what is absolutely critical is harder and harder to make
as televisions become computers and computers become any kind of device one
can imagine. Who would have thought that we'd arrive at a time when someone
would select a telephone based on the radio and television content it would
make available.
At our last Missouri board meeting, I asked how many people routinely hire
readers. Of the thirty people there, three said they did. I asked about
volunteers and got nothing in response. So, whether for good or ill, many of
us do not have or do not avail ourselves of sighted assistance. This
wouldn't work for me with the print that passes through my office, but
apparently it works for others and the answer has to be accessible hardware
and software to read mail, pay bills, and fill out the forms that are
required to get along in the world.
Warmly,
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Bryan Schulz
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:01 PM
To: Blind Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND
BYFAILINGTOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
hi,
this is a main problem i see with blind people; they are too
proud/egotistical to admit they need help.
i guarantee you like at a McDonald's location, one of the workers there
wouldn't mind saying what movies they have on hand maybe unless it was high
noon and all lines were 4-5 customers deep.
it could actually go smoother as they probably know how to quickly work the
machine and they feel glad to help.
so you say "yes, that one sounds good, thanks" then swipe your card.
Bryan Schulz
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Foret Jr
To: Blind Talk Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND BY
FAILINGTOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
Uh, in which case, how would you propose to enter the choices you want? I
still maintain the action is correct; and, I want to make my own choices.
Why should you not?
Sincerely,
The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!!
Skype name:
barefootedray
Facebook:
facebook.com/ray.foretjr.1
On Jan 15, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Bryan Schulz wrote:
> hi,
>
> this is not like using an atm.
> all you have to do is swipe your card and don't have to punch in your
pin.
> other than being able to know what the choices are, the accessibility
challenge is the same as the airport terminal case which was lost.
> if there is one that should be accessible, i would say the airport
terminal is more important.
>
> Bryan Schulz
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marion Gwizdala
> To: Blind Talk Mailing List
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND BY
FAILING TOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
>
>
> Bryan,
> There is not an architect in the United States who would design a
> building with steps and would not consider designing an alternative
method
> of accessing the building. Similarly, no architect would design this
> building with doorways too narrow to accommodate a wheelchair. the
reason
> these accessible design features are so globally implemented into
buildings
> is due to the advocacy of those who use wheelchairs. I suppose one
could
> argue that someone else could go into the building to conduct the
business
> for the wheelchair user, just as you argue that someone else can
complete
> the transaction at Red Box for the blind. The law defines
discrimination, in
> part, as an unequal benefit and this is certainly unequal.
> I believe it is reasonable for the blind to expect that digital
> architecture is accessible to us. law suits are one of the ways these
things
> are accomplished. In our system of justice known as case law, the
courts
> are responsible for interpreting just what a particular law actually
means
> and defining its practical implementation. It is due time that those
> responsible for designing digital architecture be held responsible for
the
> simple features of audible output. Until companies understand that
blind
> people are consumers, we will continue to be unequal.
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bryan Schulz" <b.schulz at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND BY
FAILING
> TOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
>
>
> hi,
>
> so if someone had to take the guy to the location anyway, why is he so
> miffed about the machine?
> why not sue the film company for leaving out descriptions as well?
> people today are very sue happy.
>
> Bryan Schulz
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Andrews
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:54 AM
> Subject: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND BY FAILING
TO
> PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
>
>
>
>>
>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
>
>> January 12, 2012
>
>
>
>> CONTACTS: Bryan Bashin, CEO, Lighthouse for the
>> Blind (415) 694-7346 Lisamaria Martinez,
>> plaintiff (510) 289-2577 Michael Nunez of
>> Disability Rights Advocates (510) 665-8644 Jay
>> Koslofsky of Law Offices of Jay Koslofsky (510) 280-5627
>
>
>
>
>> REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND BY
>> FAILING TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE
>> KIOSKS Oakland, CA - January 12, 20012 - Recent
>> technological advances are sweeping the nattion,
>> changing the way people buy products and
>> services. Self-service kiosks with automated,
>> touch-screen interfaces now allow people to
>> bank, shop, and conduct a wide range of
>> transactions independently, without the
>> assistance of a clerk. This technology is fast
>> becoming an integral part of our every day
>> lives. Although these technologies can make our
>> lives easier, Redbox, a video rental giant, has
>> chosen to use self-service kiosks with
>> touch-screen controls that exclude the blind
>> from using its services. Blind Californians
>> cannot use touch-screen kiosks that offer only
>> visually-based controls. A class action lawsuit
>> filed today in the United States District Court
>> for the Northern District of California
>> challenges Redboxâ?Ts inaccessible kiosks. The
>> lawsuit is the first of its kind in the country.
>> The suit is brought by the Lighthouse for the
>> Blind and Visually Impaired, as well as five
>> blind individuals, on behalf of blind and
>> visually impaired people throughout
>> California. Plaintiffs are represented by
>> Disability Rights Advocates (â?oDRAâ?ˇ), a
>> non-profit disability rights legal center
>> headquartered in Berkeley, California that
>> specializes in high-impact cases on behalf of
>> people with disabilities. Plaintiffs are also
>> represented by the Law Offices of Jay Koslofsky;
>> Mr. Koslofsky is an experienced civil rights
>> attorney. Redbox has a major share of the video
>> rental market. Redbox DVD rentals account for
>> approximately 34% of the DVD rental market
>> nationwide. According to Redbox, almost 60
>> million videos are rented from its kiosks
>> nationally each month. Redbox kiosks can be
>> found at thousands of businesses throughout
>> California including Save Mart, which is a
>> business that is also named as a defendant in
>> the lawsuit. For generations, blind and visually
>> impaired people have watched and enjoyed movies
>> as an ordinary part of daily life. Blind people
>> with some remaining vision may watch films on
>> their own or with sighted friends and family who
>> can describe the details and actions of a film.
>> In addition, many blind people enjoy watching
>> dialogue driven films. Plaintiff Lisamaria
>> Martinez is a legally blind resident of Union
>> City, California. â?ˇI love watching movies with
>> my husband and son and would like to
>> independently rent movies for my family at
>> Redboxes,â?ˇ said Lisamaria Martinez. Plaintiff
>> Joshua Saunders is a legally blind resident of
>> El Cerrito, California who enjoys watching
>> movies with friends and family. â?oIâ?Tm not
>> asking for the world here but simply for the
>> ability to rent DVDs from Redboxes just like
>> everyone else can,â?ˇ said Joshua Saunders.
>> Redboxâ?Ts inaccessible touch-screen kiosks shut
>> out a large and growing community of blind
>> Californians. It is estimated that 100,000
>> Californians are legally blind and as the
>> population continues to age, the number of
>> adults with vision loss will increase. The
>> technology exists to make self-service kiosks
>> accessible to the blind. Accessible ATMs and
>> iPhones make use of tactile controls and/or
>> screen reading software that enables blind
>> people to use these devices. â?oA lack of
>> accessibility in newly emerging forms of
>> commerce is a symptom of the overall growing
>> technological divide that blind people
>> experience when companies fail to build in
>> accessible features at the onset,â?ˇ said Bryan
>> Bashin, Executive Director/CEO of the Lighthouse
>> for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
>> â?oTechnology is a double edged sword. It has
>> the power to enable millions, but it can disable
>> many Americans far more than it enables them if
>> accessibility is not built into technology at
>> the beginning,â?ˇ said Jay Koslofsky,
>> Plaintiffsâ?T attorney of the Law Offices of Jay
>> Koslofsky. â?oRedbox is shutting out thousands
>> of Californians from its services because it
>> refuses to make its technology accessible to
>> blind consumers,â?ˇ said Michael Nunez,
>> Plaintiffsâ?T attorney of Disability Rights
>> Advocates. About Lighthouse for the Blind and
>> Visually Impaired The Lighthouse for the Blind
>> and Visually Impaired, a non-profit corporation,
>> is one of Californiaâ?Ts oldest organizations
>> serving the blind and visually impaired
>> community. The Lighthouse is dedicated to
>> aiding blind and visually impaired individuals
>> in leading productive, enriching, and
>> independent lives. About Disability Rights
>> Advocates (DRA) Disability Rights Advocates is a
>> non-profit legal center which, for nearly twenty
>> years, has specialized in high-impact class
>> action litigation on behalf of people with all
>> types of disabilities. DRA litigates nationally
>> and has offices in New York City and Berkeley,
>> California. About Law Offices of Jay Koslofsky
>> Jay Koslofsky is an attorney in private practice
>> with more than 30 years of experience. He
>> specializes in civil rights cases and class action litigation. ###
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindtlk mailing list
> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindtlk:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.n
et
> _______________________________________________
> blindtlk mailing list
> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindtlk:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindtlk mailing list
> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.n
et
> _______________________________________________
> blindtlk mailing list
> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/rforetjr%40att.net
_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.n
et
_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earthlink.ne
t
_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/drevans%40bellsouth.net
More information about the BlindTlk
mailing list