[Blindtlk] Lowes Installs Accessible POS
Marion Gwizdala
blind411 at verizon.net
Thu Jan 19 09:50:37 UTC 2012
Mike,
I will be going to Lowes this weekend to get supplies for a project, so
i will give you an update then.
Fraternally yours,
Marion
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'Blind Talk Mailing List'" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Lowes Installs Accessible POS
Hi, Marion.
With respect, I remain skeptical. I wouldn't count on those point-of-sale
machines being accessible till you actually see them in stores around your
area.
Moreover, I don't believe there will be the great dividend of accessibility
and simplicity in human-machine interfaces as a result of worsening vision
on the part of the increasing number of senior citizens with vision problems
that many imagine will come to pass. I suspect that what these seniors
*really* want is to do away with such equipment altogether and to go back to
talking with real clerks and signing real checks or credit card slips. I'm
afraid many senior citizens just wont' bother going to Lowes or any other
stores with new-fangled sales machines. I can't tell you the number of times
I've had senior citizens losing vision tell me they don't want to learn to
use screen-readers or other damned machines -- they just want their sight
back.
Now it's part of *our* jobs to bring them along and say that (a) they
haven't a choice in the matter and (b) it ain't so bad.
I just don't believe we have the market clout to make accessibility a
priority -- what clout we have is legal.
Just my view.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:47 AM
To: Blind Talk Mailing List
Subject: [Blindtlk] Lowes Installs Accessible POS
Mike,
The other alternative is to impress upon those who wish to keep us out
through inaccessible design that we are part of the consumer base necessary
for their very survival. In my dealings with the general manager at my Lowes
I reminded him of my frequent purchases and illustrated that fact with my
substantial credit line and current balance, all of which was spent at his
store. I informed him that the Tampa Bay area has one of the largest
populations of individuals with visual impairments, as the community has an
elderly population whose leading cause of visual impairment is macular
degeneration. I urged him to send a message to its consumers that Lowes is
interested in their business and recognizes the importance of removing the
barriers to completing transactions independently.
The GM took my concerns to the District Manager. As the result, all of
the lowes in this district are installing accessible peripherals that will
allow nonvisual access to all of their POS equipment. Consumerism is alive
and well!
fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'Blind Talk Mailing List'" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND
BYFAILINGTOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
Marion:
First, it is true that designing a web site to be accessible from the get-go
is certainly easier and far preferable to trying to retrofit one. However,
that begs the question in that many sites have already been designed, i.e.,
the companies in question already paid a subcontractor to design their
sites. And for some things, as in java, it turns out that it isn't always
all that easy to design accessibility in, our protests to the contrary
notwithstanding. You and I might argue that some of the more esoteric bells
and whistles aren't necessary to a good site. But we can argue till we're
blue in the face and get nowhere precisely *because* we are a minority. So
what do we do now? Frankly, although we've followed the tack of suing big
companies to obtain access, occasionally with success, it may prove quite
daunting to do this for hundreds and hundreds of companies and sites. It
works a little bit better in terms of schools because they want those
Federal funds.
Second, when I hear blind persons arguing as you have that "security" impels
you to want to enter information in personally, I immediately say: "OK; if
that's true, then how can we justify blind foreign service officers?
Security was one of the buggaboos that the State Department originally used
to keep from hiring Rammi Rabby and, I suppose, also the late Don Galloway.
In my mind, we cannot on the one hand say people should hire us for jobs
requiring security whilst on the other hand protesting lustily that we don't
have security when we have assistance. Which way do we want it?
With respect, I don't think many of those younger than we think about
logical consistency in philosophical tenets as I believe we should. We
cannot expect others to treat us with respect and equality if we can't
articulate philosophy that doesn't amount to "I want this because I want it
and doing anything else is inconvenient!"
Were I you, I'd just either stop going to Lowe's or suck it up and pay the
telephone charge and chalk it up to doing business as a blind person. Is it
fair? Perhaps not. But sometimes life ain't fair. When *we* get enough DIY
blind persons it'll be easier.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 4:04 AM
To: Blind Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND BY
FAILINGTOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
Mike,
I understand and agree that we can find equivalent means whereby to
accomplish a task that may not be exactly equal, although the outcome would
be so. I guess my point is that designing a building to be accessible is far
less expensive than retrofitting that building for accessibility. Digital
interfaces can be easily made accessible, literally for a few dollars and it
would be good if those who create such interfaces designed accessibility
into them as architects do bricks & mortar. I also know that my opinion may
be biased based upon my interactions with Lowes.
For about a year, I have been urging Lowes to make their website
accessible so I can pay my monthly credit card bill. In the meantime, I have
had to argue each month with their customer service department to have the
$10 charge waived for paying by telephone because I cannot pay online. One
of their arguments is that I can mail in a check. Perhaps, but I don't use
checks, not because I am blind and they are not accessible to me, because
they are with a check writing guide, but because I am not inclined to
purchase checks so I can write one each month to Lowes. Their other argument
is that I can go into any Lowes and pay my bill. Again, this is an option,
but going to and from the closest Lowes would take an hour and a half of my
time. Why do this when the sighted public can pay their bill in three
minutes online?
Well, the other day, my wife went into Lowes to pay her bill. After
swiping her debit card she found that Lowes POS uses touch screens and has
no nonvisual access! So much for the hour and a half trip Excuse!
Now, we have two Red Boxes in our neighborhood that I know of and merry
and I have both used them with sighted assistance. I am not opposed to such
assistance, provided it does not require me to divulge information that
would compromise my security. My point is that accessible digital interfaces
are easy and inexpensive to design and it would be good for us to encourage
such design rather than retrofits.
Fraternally yours,
Marion
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'Blind Talk Mailing List'" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] REDBOX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BLIND BY
FAILINGTOPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
Marion:
Let's be brutally honest here: part of the reason why physical access for
the mobility-impaired is more recognized than technology access for the
blind is that there are a helluva lot more mobility-impaired persons than
there are blind persons. Numbers tend to count when it comes to advocacy. It
is therefore highly unusual and gratifying that the Federation does as well
as it does in the advocacy realm. It does this partly through persistence
and partly because the Federation's style is to become more expert than the
"experts" and to know citizens' rights better than do most lawyers.
Furthermore, if you start down the path that if one group has access rights,
then *all* groups must have such access rights, you will ultimately fail
when it comes to the blind because the only true way to gain such absolutely
equal access is for the blind to become sighted. Since that's not going to
happen for most of us, what we ought to be striving for is *equivalent*
access.
As an example, many believe that because the sighted can see pedestrian
traffic signals, the blind ought to be able to hear them. That would be
truly equal access, at least by the reasoning noted above. However, in most
instances, with decent training, all we, the blind, really need is
*equivalent* access which we can get by using our ears and our brains.
I'm not necessarily putting down the Redbox suit here; what I am saying is
that the situation is not a simple one and there are often complexities that
those who would simply apply legal formulae to situations do not recognize.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 4:59 PM
To: Blind Talk Mailing List
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?), 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?I love watching movies with
>my husband and son and would like to
>independently rent movies for my family at
>Redboxes,â? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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/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/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/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/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/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/blind411%40verizon.net
More information about the BlindTlk
mailing list