Pretty much. I associate with a blind person on a semi-regular basis and he swears by Apple products and their accessibility options. I trust his word when he says Apple is light years ahead in that category.
I agree. Apple will come up with a sensible fix. A shame people didn't just ask instead of immediately going the lawsuit route. Kind of undermines the motivation here.
While improving the purchasing process for a visually impaired person is a commendable goal, filing a lawsuit seems unnecessary. It's just an ambulance chaser type of suit. I feel if the people filing it, not the lawyer, actually reached out to Apple with constructive criticism, Apple would listen...more so than their competitors.
I feel for the blind. But this is absurd. This is like saying a car is discriminating against the blind. Does anyone HONESTLY think Apple's intention was to discriminate??? If you do, then you are clueless about Apple. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Bet you a competitor is behind this bogus lawsuit.
No, just a lawyer troll making a living by looking for ADA issues he can blow up into a class-action suit. This kind is worse that an ambulance chaser because no one needs to be hurt to create a suit. Sooner or later every company has to deal with these bloodsuckers.
Has any company ever done more for the handicapped?
There's several major companies very actively recruiting the handicapped. Twenty years ago that didn't happen.
Interesting tidbit: Go to Apple's website and play any video. You will notice the "CC" button in the controller to turn on closed caption. Then head over to Google's YouTube channel.
None of the videos that I tried there had "CC" available.
The bad news is that Apple is facing a class action lawsuit from visually impaired citizens living in the Land-Of-The-Free-To-Sue-Whoever-I-Want-If-I-Don't-Like-Something.
The good news is that this class action won't occur until previous class actions against car manufacturers, movie theatres, book publishers, TV stations, and window manufacturers are completed.
Apple Stores already have non-iOS based POS touch points. I was a manager at the Stockton street store in SF and there is at least one "traditional" POS terminal per floor for tactile input. Hopefully that store had there's set up.
Interesting tidbit: Go to Apple's website and play any video. You will notice the "CC" button in the controller to turn on closed caption. Then head over to Google's YouTube channel.
None of the videos that I tried there had "CC" available.
Google doesn't produce very many of those Youtube videos, so if the owner didn't add CC then it's not available for the most part . To Google's credit tho thay are tryign to add closed captioning to several videos by using their speech recognition tech if the original audio is clear enough for it. . Apple produces all the videos on their site don't they? The two are not really comparable. Kudos to Apple tho if they're ensuring every video they produce is accessible to the hearing impaired. . . or those with a sleeping infant nearby.
The ADA is federal law, and if any group is out of compliance with it, this is precisely the way to get compliance. Disabled people know all too well the deaf ear (pun intended) they are met with when ADA non-compliance is broached outside of court - many businesses and municipalities won't spend the money to come into compliance with federal law until the courts force them to.
I picked up on Tim Cook's reference to the blind in his response during that Apple shareholder meeting. As a person who is both visually and aurally impaired, Apple has my confidence, based on their track record, that they will provide a reasonable fix.
No, just a lawyer troll making a living by looking for ADA issues he can blow up into a class-action suit. This kind is worse that an ambulance chaser because no one needs to be hurt to create a suit. Sooner or later every company has to deal with these bloodsuckers.
If this is the case, then why is the lawsuit not seeking damages and only seeking remedies?
If doesn't seem to me that a lawsuit is necessary to convince Apple to address such an issue. This is the generate legal fees. The Apple Santa Monica store had a blind employee (with dog) helping customers. I have seen Stevie Wonder shopping in an Apple store.
If this is the case, then why is the lawsuit not seeking damages and only seeking remedies?
Good catch. I'd missed that in the first read. So they don't want any money, they just want it fixed. Doesn't sound like anything to complain about then.
BS complaint. The easy pay system isn't a user system for anyone. Only staff use easy pays. Period.
And they have accessible keypad systems for debit cards. For the rare times they use a debit card that won't run as credit. No one puts a PIN number into an easy pay.
Comments
I agree. Apple will come up with a sensible fix. A shame people didn't just ask instead of immediately going the lawsuit route. Kind of undermines the motivation here.
While improving the purchasing process for a visually impaired person is a commendable goal, filing a lawsuit seems unnecessary. It's just an ambulance chaser type of suit. I feel if the people filing it, not the lawyer, actually reached out to Apple with constructive criticism, Apple would listen...more so than their competitors.
Bet you a competitor is behind this bogus lawsuit.
More likely an attorney looking for a big paycheck.
Edit: Oops. Somebody beat me to the punch on this.
There's several major companies very actively recruiting the handicapped. Twenty years ago that didn't happen.
No, just a lawyer troll making a living by looking for ADA issues he can blow up into a class-action suit. This kind is worse that an ambulance chaser because no one needs to be hurt to create a suit. Sooner or later every company has to deal with these bloodsuckers.
Has any company ever done more for the handicapped?
There's several major companies very actively recruiting the handicapped. Twenty years ago that didn't happen.
Interesting tidbit: Go to Apple's website and play any video. You will notice the "CC" button in the controller to turn on closed caption. Then head over to Google's YouTube channel.
None of the videos that I tried there had "CC" available.
http://www.walgreens.com/topic/sr/disability_inclusion_home.jsp?stop_mobi=yes
And it's not out of charity
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3749414/
Do you want the good or bad news first?
The bad news is that Apple is facing a class action lawsuit from visually impaired citizens living in the Land-Of-The-Free-To-Sue-Whoever-I-Want-If-I-Don't-Like-Something.
The good news is that this class action won't occur until previous class actions against car manufacturers, movie theatres, book publishers, TV stations, and window manufacturers are completed.
Google doesn't produce very many of those Youtube videos, so if the owner didn't add CC then it's not available for the most part . To Google's credit tho thay are tryign to add closed captioning to several videos by using their speech recognition tech if the original audio is clear enough for it. . Apple produces all the videos on their site don't they? The two are not really comparable. Kudos to Apple tho if they're ensuring every video they produce is accessible to the hearing impaired. . . or those with a sleeping infant nearby.
The ADA is federal law, and if any group is out of compliance with it, this is precisely the way to get compliance. Disabled people know all too well the deaf ear (pun intended) they are met with when ADA non-compliance is broached outside of court - many businesses and municipalities won't spend the money to come into compliance with federal law until the courts force them to.
I picked up on Tim Cook's reference to the blind in his response during that Apple shareholder meeting. As a person who is both visually and aurally impaired, Apple has my confidence, based on their track record, that they will provide a reasonable fix.
No, just a lawyer troll making a living by looking for ADA issues he can blow up into a class-action suit. This kind is worse that an ambulance chaser because no one needs to be hurt to create a suit. Sooner or later every company has to deal with these bloodsuckers.
If this is the case, then why is the lawsuit not seeking damages and only seeking remedies?
If doesn't seem to me that a lawsuit is necessary to convince Apple to address such an issue. This is the generate legal fees. The Apple Santa Monica store had a blind employee (with dog) helping customers. I have seen Stevie Wonder shopping in an Apple store.
Good catch. I'd missed that in the first read. So they don't want any money, they just want it fixed. Doesn't sound like anything to complain about then.
And they have accessible keypad systems for debit cards. For the rare times they use a debit card that won't run as credit. No one puts a PIN number into an easy pay.