4 ms·

> I challenge you to point out any mechanism that would prohibit me from completing an in-store transaction to the non-compliant disadvantage of the disabled wi

> I challenge you to point out any mechanism that would prohibit me from completing an in-store transaction to the non-compliant disadvantage of the disabled without requiring a visit to their website. You can get coupons on their website. As a blind person, I would need to take extra steps in order to get those coupons. You can refill prescriptions online and save time, rather than waiting in the store. There you go. Time to stop moaning and get busy and start making the website ADA compliant. > has yet to compel me otherwise. Again, I've never used their handicap bathroom. Or any of their bathrooms. You having not used it is a very weak argument. Apparently it wouldn't even stand up in a court of law.

metaphor 9y ago
You've completely missed the mark by failing to point out any mechanism that addresses a material disadvantage that would otherwise compel a customer to visit their website, visually impaired or not. Restated, point out a material disadvantage that I would directly suffer if I didn't visit their website...you'd have to establish that I must visit this website before you can make a valid argument. Failing to clearly establish this criterion begs to question what it means to be heavily integrated. > You can get coupons on their website. As a blind person, I would need to take extra steps in order to get those coupons. You mean the same coupons that are provided 1.) at the entrance of each store; 2.) posted on applicable product in every isle; 3.) stuffed in your snail mailbox; and 4.) spammed to your e-mail inbox. Your argument is asymptotic to a B&M store which doesn't have a website being legally required to create and maintain one in compliance with the ADA because electronic coupons are somehow universally equitable to the visually impaired...and yet here we are discussing litigation precisely because they're not. > You can refill prescriptions online and save time, rather than waiting in the store. So what you're saying is the time it takes for someone who is visually impaired to independently navigate and fill out a compliant web form is, in some qualitative sense of average, less than the time it would take for a pharmacy specialist without an equivalent disability to perform the same task. Oh how easily this digital generation has forgotten that a vanilla phone call is a valid method of achieving certain end goals. > Again, I've never used their handicap bathroom. Or any of their bathrooms. You having not used it is a very weak argument. Again, your counter-argument is a red herring and irrelevant: the existence of handicap bathroom provisions is a requirement of ADA compliance, which is predicated on and applicable to the existence of a B&M store front...it has nothing to do a website! It doesn't matter that you've never used the physical resource; there's clear and established requirements traceability to existing statute. To wit, what wasn't clearly delineated was website != public accommodation, which the court disagreed with based on the premise that the website in question was, by their definition, heavily integrated with the company's physical store locations. Accessibility of the website is not what's being questioned...I'm calling bullshit on the legal finding that this website was heavily integrated. The onus is on you to understand the logic.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  > You mean the same coupons that are provided 1.) at the entrance of each store; 2.) posted on applicable product in every isle; 3.) stuffed in your snail mailbox; and 4.) spammed to your e-mail inbox. Yes. Those same coupons. It takes less time to get them on the website when it works. The extra time it takes to for those other methods you listed is a "material inconvenience" for a blind person. All of the methods you listed require the assistance of another person. Getting them from the website does not require the assistance of another person. > So what you're saying is the time it takes for someone who is visually impaired to independently navigate and fill out a compliant web form is, in some qualitative sense of average, less than the time it would take for a pharmacy specialist without an equivalent disability to perform the same task. Yes. If there is a long line. And a blind person doesn't have to wait at the pharmacy for 20 minutes after having the pharmacist do what could have completed at home at their own convenience. That again is a "material disadvantage" that people who are not blind do not have to suffer: 1) wait in line for the pharmacist. 2) wait again for the script to be filled. There is also the question of privacy. A blind person has no way of telling who is listening in on the conversation while at the pharmacy counter. A non-blind person is able to use the website to enjoy this added privacy. You should read the court ruling (only 13 pages) so you can learn all of the above and more details about why the court ruled the way it did. > It doesn't matter that you've never used the physical resource; there's clear and established requirements traceability to existing statute. It's good to see you're finally starting to understand that whether or not you have personally used the website (or bathroom) has nothing to do with the law. Agreed this lawsuit covers new territory. But your usage (or lack usage) of the website proves nothing about how integrated the website is with the physical location. > The onus is on you to understand the logic. If there's any onus, it's on Winn Dixie to fix their website. Per the court ruling. And perhaps the onus is on you to stop making assumptions about the life of a blind person, and to read the court ruling in full so you don't make ignorant sounding statements about what is and isn't convenient for a blind person compared to a non-blind person.
  - metaphor 9y ago
    > The extra time it takes to for those other methods you listed is a "material inconvenience" for a blind person. All of the methods you listed require the assistance of another person. How convenient that you've completely ignored the intentfully positioned point (4) and purposely withheld point (5) mobile app, then proceed to conflate subjective inconvenience with objective disadvantage, then fail to address the asymptotic counter-point given. There exists more than one method to acquire the same coupons: none of which are exclusive to a particular distribution medium, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired. > And a blind person doesn't have to wait... How convenient that you've completely ignored the prepostured phone call alternative remark, then substantiate your realigned definition of disadvantage with conditionally objective points and still fail to acknowledge that the mentioned alternative affords the same privilege which is not inaccessible to the visually impaired. There exists more than one way to expedite a prescription refill: none of which are exclusive to a particular process, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired. > There is also the question of privacy. A blind person has no way of telling who is listening... A blind person doesn't have to vocalize a single word to conceal privacy-sensitive information and still effectively communicate at an open pharmacy counter: fold a prepared (written, typed, whatever means favorable to the blind) piece of paper containing sensitive information, pass said private message to pharmacist when applicable. Paper not accessible? Try text on mobile. Keypad not accessible? Try any speech-to-text mobile app. Mobile not accessible? Try a phone call from your favorite secluded location. Common sense for anyone who isn't mentally impaired and doesn't have a thinly veiled legal agenda. There exists more than one way to achieve derivative privacy: none of which are exclusive to a particular channel, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired. But I'm protecting my privacy under HIPPA, says Gil. If this claim were even remotely legitimate, pharmacy counters wouldn't have any semblance to physically adjacent open check-out lines, and HIPPA would mandate it so, not the ADA. Even if on some Twin Earth privacy in a deliberately open public accommodation were a legitimate concern, it would impact all in-store customers without discrimination...and since both normal and visually impaired customers have alternative means of achieving the same benefit of derivative privacy, no inherent disadvantage exists. > And perhaps the onus is on you to stop making assumptions about the life of a blind person, and to read the court ruling in full... The plaintiff describes his "inconveniences" in sufficient detail for me to opine at will...no unfounded assumptions required. I really don't care what is and isn't inconvenient to the visually impaired because the contention I was initially remarking on was the court's decision of classifying Winn-Dixie's website as heavily integrated...to which you've provided no relevant argument against, and in which it appears you've lost complete sight of. This discussion has clearly digressed to the point where nothing constructive may come of it. Therefore, I submit privilege of the last word to you.

metaphor 9y ago

You've completely missed the mark by failing to point out any mechanism that addresses a material disadvantage that would otherwise compel a customer to visit their website, visually impaired or not. Restated, point out a material disadvantage that I would directly suffer if I didn't visit their website...you'd have to establish that I must visit this website before you can make a valid argument. Failing to clearly establish this criterion begs to question what it means to be heavily integrated. > You can get coupons on their website. As a blind person, I would need to take extra steps in order to get those coupons. You mean the same coupons that are provided 1.) at the entrance of each store; 2.) posted on applicable product in every isle; 3.) stuffed in your snail mailbox; and 4.) spammed to your e-mail inbox. Your argument is asymptotic to a B&M store which doesn't have a website being legally required to create and maintain one in compliance with the ADA because electronic coupons are somehow universally equitable to the visually impaired...and yet here we are discussing litigation precisely because they're not. > You can refill prescriptions online and save time, rather than waiting in the store. So what you're saying is the time it takes for someone who is visually impaired to independently navigate and fill out a compliant web form is, in some qualitative sense of average, less than the time it would take for a pharmacy specialist without an equivalent disability to perform the same task. Oh how easily this digital generation has forgotten that a vanilla phone call is a valid method of achieving certain end goals. > Again, I've never used their handicap bathroom. Or any of their bathrooms. You having not used it is a very weak argument. Again, your counter-argument is a red herring and irrelevant: the existence of handicap bathroom provisions is a requirement of ADA compliance, which is predicated on and applicable to the existence of a B&M store front...it has nothing to do a website! It doesn't matter that you've never used the physical resource; there's clear and established requirements traceability to existing statute. To wit, what wasn't clearly delineated was website != public accommodation, which the court disagreed with based on the premise that the website in question was, by their definition, heavily integrated with the company's physical store locations. Accessibility of the website is not what's being questioned...I'm calling bullshit on the legal finding that this website was heavily integrated. The onus is on you to understand the logic.

tchaffee 9y ago
> You mean the same coupons that are provided 1.) at the entrance of each store; 2.) posted on applicable product in every isle; 3.) stuffed in your snail mailbox; and 4.) spammed to your e-mail inbox. Yes. Those same coupons. It takes less time to get them on the website when it works. The extra time it takes to for those other methods you listed is a "material inconvenience" for a blind person. All of the methods you listed require the assistance of another person. Getting them from the website does not require the assistance of another person. > So what you're saying is the time it takes for someone who is visually impaired to independently navigate and fill out a compliant web form is, in some qualitative sense of average, less than the time it would take for a pharmacy specialist without an equivalent disability to perform the same task. Yes. If there is a long line. And a blind person doesn't have to wait at the pharmacy for 20 minutes after having the pharmacist do what could have completed at home at their own convenience. That again is a "material disadvantage" that people who are not blind do not have to suffer: 1) wait in line for the pharmacist. 2) wait again for the script to be filled. There is also the question of privacy. A blind person has no way of telling who is listening in on the conversation while at the pharmacy counter. A non-blind person is able to use the website to enjoy this added privacy. You should read the court ruling (only 13 pages) so you can learn all of the above and more details about why the court ruled the way it did. > It doesn't matter that you've never used the physical resource; there's clear and established requirements traceability to existing statute. It's good to see you're finally starting to understand that whether or not you have personally used the website (or bathroom) has nothing to do with the law. Agreed this lawsuit covers new territory. But your usage (or lack usage) of the website proves nothing about how integrated the website is with the physical location. > The onus is on you to understand the logic. If there's any onus, it's on Winn Dixie to fix their website. Per the court ruling. And perhaps the onus is on you to stop making assumptions about the life of a blind person, and to read the court ruling in full so you don't make ignorant sounding statements about what is and isn't convenient for a blind person compared to a non-blind person.
- metaphor 9y ago
  > The extra time it takes to for those other methods you listed is a "material inconvenience" for a blind person. All of the methods you listed require the assistance of another person. How convenient that you've completely ignored the intentfully positioned point (4) and purposely withheld point (5) mobile app, then proceed to conflate subjective inconvenience with objective disadvantage, then fail to address the asymptotic counter-point given. There exists more than one method to acquire the same coupons: none of which are exclusive to a particular distribution medium, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired. > And a blind person doesn't have to wait... How convenient that you've completely ignored the prepostured phone call alternative remark, then substantiate your realigned definition of disadvantage with conditionally objective points and still fail to acknowledge that the mentioned alternative affords the same privilege which is not inaccessible to the visually impaired. There exists more than one way to expedite a prescription refill: none of which are exclusive to a particular process, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired. > There is also the question of privacy. A blind person has no way of telling who is listening... A blind person doesn't have to vocalize a single word to conceal privacy-sensitive information and still effectively communicate at an open pharmacy counter: fold a prepared (written, typed, whatever means favorable to the blind) piece of paper containing sensitive information, pass said private message to pharmacist when applicable. Paper not accessible? Try text on mobile. Keypad not accessible? Try any speech-to-text mobile app. Mobile not accessible? Try a phone call from your favorite secluded location. Common sense for anyone who isn't mentally impaired and doesn't have a thinly veiled legal agenda. There exists more than one way to achieve derivative privacy: none of which are exclusive to a particular channel, all of which are subjectively inconvenient to some degree, and at least one of which is accessible to the visually impaired. But I'm protecting my privacy under HIPPA, says Gil. If this claim were even remotely legitimate, pharmacy counters wouldn't have any semblance to physically adjacent open check-out lines, and HIPPA would mandate it so, not the ADA. Even if on some Twin Earth privacy in a deliberately open public accommodation were a legitimate concern, it would impact all in-store customers without discrimination...and since both normal and visually impaired customers have alternative means of achieving the same benefit of derivative privacy, no inherent disadvantage exists. > And perhaps the onus is on you to stop making assumptions about the life of a blind person, and to read the court ruling in full... The plaintiff describes his "inconveniences" in sufficient detail for me to opine at will...no unfounded assumptions required. I really don't care what is and isn't inconvenient to the visually impaired because the contention I was initially remarking on was the court's decision of classifying Winn-Dixie's website as heavily integrated...to which you've provided no relevant argument against, and in which it appears you've lost complete sight of. This discussion has clearly digressed to the point where nothing constructive may come of it. Therefore, I submit privilege of the last word to you.