The law makes some things easier. But some situations are what they are. If you become severely disabled there are some things you are going to have to accept. You can get into some business, but for various reasons not others, public transportation is accessible, but if you want your own car its extremely difficult to have that provided and more than likely you will have to spend exorbitant amounts of money to make it happen etc... In this case the phones are accessible, but if the banking app isn't and you can do your banking some other way, that may be the situation you have to accept as part of your disability. There are a lot of examples out there that are tougher than this. Companies that spend there own money and assist in these areas make life for the disabled much easier, but there is no obligation to do so.
I agree. The disabled persons should know even nondiabled persons sometimes have to accept certain disadvantages. For example, there are a couple years Google purposely not giving iPhone users navigation ability in the Maps app while it gave Android users this ability. The iPhone users tolerated this discrimination for a couple years until Apple replaced Google Maps app with one of its own. Then Google put the navigation into the iOS Google Maps app.
I agree. The disabled persons should know even nondiabled persons sometimes have to accept certain disadvantages. For example, there are a couple years Google purposely not giving iPhone users navigation ability in the Maps app while it gave Android users this ability. The iPhone users tolerated this discrimination for a couple years until Apple replaced Google Maps app with one of its own. Then Google put the navigation into the iOS Google Maps app.
I would respectfully say that your definition of discrimination and mine are probably very different.
I would respectfully say that your definition of discrimination and mine are probably very different.
What is your definition. The fact is Google makes more money out of iPhone users than Android users by selling ads. iPhone users are bigger customers of Google.
Companies that spend there own money and assist in these areas make life for the disabled much easier, but there is no obligation to do so.
There are laws that apply to what is required with respect to disability access, so yes there is an obligation, depending on the type of services the company offers. In the case of the App Store, it should be up to the developers, but it is a gray area because Apple is the one selling the product and they sell to government and federally funded entities so technically the products should be in compliance.
What is your definition. The fact is Google makes more money out of iPhone users than Android users by selling ads. iPhone users are bigger customers of Google.
Disabled people face real life discrimination over wages, employment, promotion etc...the comparison to turn-by-turn directions is uninformed and could be interpreted as disrespectful to those who face these factors in their daily lives.
For the most part it is pretty easy for app developers to comply. It is just writing clean code. Instead of only providing an icon for a button, they simply give it a label in the code as well. 10 extra seconds. It is a no brainer once you have been made aware. The main issue is that there are no trial apps available so a blind person would have to contact each app developer and ask if the app was compliant or not before making a purchase.
There are laws that apply to what is required with respect to disability access, so yes there is an obligation, depending on the type of services the company offers. In the case of the App Store, it should be up to the developers, but it is a gray area because Apple is the one selling the product and they sell to government and federally funded entities so technically the products should be in compliance.
This argument is wrong. Apple selling apps from App Store is no different from Google Play or Amazon store.
There are laws that apply to what is required with respect to disability access, so yes there is an obligation, depending on the type of services the company offers. In the case of the App Store, it should be up to the developers, but it is a gray area because Apple is the one selling the product and they sell to government and federally funded entities so technically the products should be in compliance.
I understand your point, I do believe that in general there is somewhat of a misconception about the ADA in that it is supposed to be an equalizer, with reasonable accommodations that do not cause undue hardship (not saying that is the case with the apps). Some people believe that compliance with the ADA means that everything has to be accessible all the time. Not sure I agree with the portion about government funded entities, they don't have to buy apple or any particular app.
I have really lost any sense of compassion and sympathy for the handicapped over the years. I've seen to many stories featuring these self-serving self-centered groups and individuals, taking their demands to extremes. Lawsuit after lawsuit, many of which are frivolous and absurd, which cost EVERYONE. It's the good of the few at the expense of the many. And still the ungrateful bastards aren't satisfied.
All I can say is do a google search using the term below, and see if you feel the same way about people with disabilities afterwards.
I have really lost any sense of compassion and sympathy for the handicapped over the years. I've seen to many stories featuring these self-serving self-centered groups and individuals, taking their demands to extremes. Lawsuit after lawsuit, many of which are frivolous and absurd, which cost EVERYONE. It's the good of the few at the expense of the many. And still the ungrateful bastards aren't satisfied.
All I can say is do a google search using the term below, and see if you feel the same way about people with disabilities afterwards.
Disabled people face real life discrimination over wages, employment, promotion etc...the comparison to turn-by-turn directions is uninformed and could be interpreted as disrespectful to those who face these factors in their daily lives.
You are wrong. They are not discrimination. You need to think about the non-disabled persons too. How their wages, employment, promotion are determined? Legally they are determined by performance. To be more specific the amount or the value of the work they did. Can disabled person perform as well as non-disabled in general? Please give me your honest answer.
You are wrong. They are not discrimination. You need to think about the non-disabled persons too. How their wages, employment, promotion are determined? Legally they are determined by performance. To be more specific the amount or the value of the work they did. Can disabled person perform as well as non-disabled in general? Please give me your honest answer.
Thats my point. Legally those things should be based on performance, but often with the disabled they are not and are based on bias, fear and lack of understanding, putting the disabled person at a disadvantage, which is partially addressed by the ADA.
Thats my point. Legally those things should be based on performance, but often with the disabled they are not and are based on bias, fear and lack of understanding, putting the disabled person at a disadvantage, which is partially addressed by the ADA.
No, you did not answer my question. Can disabled person perform as well as non-disabled in general?
This is the problem of disabled persons. They are out of sync to the real cruel world.
You are practically begging the universe to leave you blind, deaf, and paralyzed.
Obviously if you take two people who are equivalent in all ways, except that one has a disability, the person lacking the disability is going to be more able to do some things than the disabled person. I suppose that is your brilliant point. Good for you Einstein -- I hope you break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Despite your ignorance, the point of the ADA is NOT to force employers to pay disabled people to do things they are not capable of doing.
The point is to protect people with disabilities from employers who assume that because a disabled person cannot do X and they also cannot do Y, when X is not relevant to the job but Y is.
I have zero expectation that you will understand this nuance.
And seriously, you suck and deserve to suffer greatly.
I have really lost any sense of compassion and sympathy for the handicapped over the years. I've seen to many stories featuring these self-serving self-centered groups and individuals, taking their demands to extremes. Lawsuit after lawsuit, many of which are frivolous and absurd, which cost EVERYONE. It's the good of the few at the expense of the many. And still the ungrateful bastards aren't satisfied.
All I can say is do a google search using the term below, and see if you feel the same way about people with disabilities afterwards.
"people with disabilities absurd lawsuits ADA"
Please don't put them all in one bunch, the vast majority of the disabled don't ask for or need your compassion or your sympathy (empathy, the ability to see things from someone else's perspective, would probably be welcomed) but generalizing the disabled by the actions of a few is not different than any other prejudice that exist out there.
As a fully blind person first let me appologize for this ridiculous turn of events. I am from Europe, therefore this organisation does not represent me. And after seeing this, I can't say I'm very sad about that. The way this keeps happening over and over again frankly disgusts me. The iTunes lawsuit back in 2008 was way too extreme in my humble opinion. After this, it's been Apple this, Apple that. In 2009 Apple has included accessibility into their mobile operating system, which was pretty revolutionary at the time. A lot of blind people jumped on the iOS bandwagon at that point and blindness organisations have noticed this. This is why a number of accessibility solutions were developped for the platform. Android followed suit with accessibility options not much later, but because Apple got there first this never gained as much traction. The access of Android is somewhat less polished, but it's mature enough to be useful in daily life. This little history lesson should at least point out, why only Apple. Because a lot of blind folks own Apple devices now and they MUST HAVE FULL ACCESSIBILITY, GOSH DARN IT! Sure, let's make Draw Something accessible next, won't we? There's no laws being breached here. There's no rules being broken. There's just an organisation that doesn't want to realize what they are doing is no more than whining for candy.
The point is to protect people with disabilities from employers who assume that because a disabled person cannot do X and they also cannot do Y, when X is not relevant to the job but Y is.
A college student neighbor who is on summer break asked me last weekend if I had any work for him because we wants to pay down his student loan. He just finished his second year. He is planning to graduate quickly and get in a PhD program in biology to work in cancer research. Needless to say he is a pretty bright kid and also physically fit, but he sucks at yard work and only lasted about an hour before giving up and going home. Some people are good at some tasks and bad at others. Same with disabled people.
One of my friends is blind and he built a multimillion dollar software business. I work a lot in visual media and I was telling him that if I lost my vision I would be sunk. He replied it would be worse to be deaf. I said why? If you are deaf you can't interact with society. He said, I can talk on the phone and make big business deals and people don't even know I'm blind. So yes people with disabilities very from one to another in their capabilities just like regular people.
Comments
The law makes some things easier. But some situations are what they are. If you become severely disabled there are some things you are going to have to accept. You can get into some business, but for various reasons not others, public transportation is accessible, but if you want your own car its extremely difficult to have that provided and more than likely you will have to spend exorbitant amounts of money to make it happen etc... In this case the phones are accessible, but if the banking app isn't and you can do your banking some other way, that may be the situation you have to accept as part of your disability. There are a lot of examples out there that are tougher than this. Companies that spend there own money and assist in these areas make life for the disabled much easier, but there is no obligation to do so.
I agree. The disabled persons should know even nondiabled persons sometimes have to accept certain disadvantages. For example, there are a couple years Google purposely not giving iPhone users navigation ability in the Maps app while it gave Android users this ability. The iPhone users tolerated this discrimination for a couple years until Apple replaced Google Maps app with one of its own. Then Google put the navigation into the iOS Google Maps app.
I agree. The disabled persons should know even nondiabled persons sometimes have to accept certain disadvantages. For example, there are a couple years Google purposely not giving iPhone users navigation ability in the Maps app while it gave Android users this ability. The iPhone users tolerated this discrimination for a couple years until Apple replaced Google Maps app with one of its own. Then Google put the navigation into the iOS Google Maps app.
I would respectfully say that your definition of discrimination and mine are probably very different.
I would respectfully say that your definition of discrimination and mine are probably very different.
What is your definition. The fact is Google makes more money out of iPhone users than Android users by selling ads. iPhone users are bigger customers of Google.
There are laws that apply to what is required with respect to disability access, so yes there is an obligation, depending on the type of services the company offers. In the case of the App Store, it should be up to the developers, but it is a gray area because Apple is the one selling the product and they sell to government and federally funded entities so technically the products should be in compliance.
What is your definition. The fact is Google makes more money out of iPhone users than Android users by selling ads. iPhone users are bigger customers of Google.
Disabled people face real life discrimination over wages, employment, promotion etc...the comparison to turn-by-turn directions is uninformed and could be interpreted as disrespectful to those who face these factors in their daily lives.
https://play.google.com/store/search?q=app for blind&c=apps&hl=en
Fortunately there are websites with lists/reviews of applications for the blind or deaf.
There are laws that apply to what is required with respect to disability access, so yes there is an obligation, depending on the type of services the company offers. In the case of the App Store, it should be up to the developers, but it is a gray area because Apple is the one selling the product and they sell to government and federally funded entities so technically the products should be in compliance.
This argument is wrong. Apple selling apps from App Store is no different from Google Play or Amazon store.
There are laws that apply to what is required with respect to disability access, so yes there is an obligation, depending on the type of services the company offers. In the case of the App Store, it should be up to the developers, but it is a gray area because Apple is the one selling the product and they sell to government and federally funded entities so technically the products should be in compliance.
I understand your point, I do believe that in general there is somewhat of a misconception about the ADA in that it is supposed to be an equalizer, with reasonable accommodations that do not cause undue hardship (not saying that is the case with the apps). Some people believe that compliance with the ADA means that everything has to be accessible all the time. Not sure I agree with the portion about government funded entities, they don't have to buy apple or any particular app.
All I can say is do a google search using the term below, and see if you feel the same way about people with disabilities afterwards.
"people with disabilities absurd lawsuits ADA"
All I can say is do a google search using the term below, and see if you feel the same way about people with disabilities afterwards.
"people with disabilities absurd lawsuits ADA"
Disabled people face real life discrimination over wages, employment, promotion etc...the comparison to turn-by-turn directions is uninformed and could be interpreted as disrespectful to those who face these factors in their daily lives.
You are wrong. They are not discrimination. You need to think about the non-disabled persons too. How their wages, employment, promotion are determined? Legally they are determined by performance. To be more specific the amount or the value of the work they did. Can disabled person perform as well as non-disabled in general? Please give me your honest answer.
You are wrong. They are not discrimination. You need to think about the non-disabled persons too. How their wages, employment, promotion are determined? Legally they are determined by performance. To be more specific the amount or the value of the work they did. Can disabled person perform as well as non-disabled in general? Please give me your honest answer.
Thats my point. Legally those things should be based on performance, but often with the disabled they are not and are based on bias, fear and lack of understanding, putting the disabled person at a disadvantage, which is partially addressed by the ADA.
Thats my point. Legally those things should be based on performance, but often with the disabled they are not and are based on bias, fear and lack of understanding, putting the disabled person at a disadvantage, which is partially addressed by the ADA.
No, you did not answer my question. Can disabled person perform as well as non-disabled in general?
No, you did not answer my question. Can disabled person perform as well as non-disabled in general?
Im not sure what your asking, since obviously this would be judged on a case by case basis.
Im not sure what your asking, since obviously this would be judged on a case by case basis.
This is the problem of disabled persons. They are out of sync to the real cruel world.
This is the problem of disabled persons. They are out of sync to the real cruel world.
Just to clarify you are saying a disable person cannot possibly do the job of a an "able" person?
This is the problem of disabled persons. They are out of sync to the real cruel world.
You are practically begging the universe to leave you blind, deaf, and paralyzed.
Obviously if you take two people who are equivalent in all ways, except that one has a disability, the person lacking the disability is going to be more able to do some things than the disabled person. I suppose that is your brilliant point. Good for you Einstein -- I hope you break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Despite your ignorance, the point of the ADA is NOT to force employers to pay disabled people to do things they are not capable of doing.
The point is to protect people with disabilities from employers who assume that because a disabled person cannot do X and they also cannot do Y, when X is not relevant to the job but Y is.
I have zero expectation that you will understand this nuance.
And seriously, you suck and deserve to suffer greatly.
I have really lost any sense of compassion and sympathy for the handicapped over the years. I've seen to many stories featuring these self-serving self-centered groups and individuals, taking their demands to extremes. Lawsuit after lawsuit, many of which are frivolous and absurd, which cost EVERYONE. It's the good of the few at the expense of the many. And still the ungrateful bastards aren't satisfied.
All I can say is do a google search using the term below, and see if you feel the same way about people with disabilities afterwards.
"people with disabilities absurd lawsuits ADA"
Please don't put them all in one bunch, the vast majority of the disabled don't ask for or need your compassion or your sympathy (empathy, the ability to see things from someone else's perspective, would probably be welcomed) but generalizing the disabled by the actions of a few is not different than any other prejudice that exist out there.
There's no laws being breached here. There's no rules being broken. There's just an organisation that doesn't want to realize what they are doing is no more than whining for candy.
A college student neighbor who is on summer break asked me last weekend if I had any work for him because we wants to pay down his student loan. He just finished his second year. He is planning to graduate quickly and get in a PhD program in biology to work in cancer research. Needless to say he is a pretty bright kid and also physically fit, but he sucks at yard work and only lasted about an hour before giving up and going home. Some people are good at some tasks and bad at others. Same with disabled people.
One of my friends is blind and he built a multimillion dollar software business. I work a lot in visual media and I was telling him that if I lost my vision I would be sunk. He replied it would be worse to be deaf. I said why? If you are deaf you can't interact with society. He said, I can talk on the phone and make big business deals and people don't even know I'm blind. So yes people with disabilities very from one to another in their capabilities just like regular people.