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.
Lawyers can collect fees from a company in violation of this type of law even if the only remedy provided is an injunction. Money damages are not required.
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.
Problem is that politely asking will inevitably relegate this issue to the backburner. And if Apple upgraded its stores for better accessibility on its own initiative, then those actions potentially run afoul of activist shareholders/muckrakers like NCPPR who would claim that Apple is not focusing enough on ROI. Citing ADA compliance and filing suit pretty much ensures that this will get high level attention, and the threat of legal action takes this issue off the table for someone like NCPPR that might want to try to make political hay out of it at Apple's expense.
If this is the case, then why is the lawsuit not seeking damages and only seeking remedies?
The lawsuit isn't seeking damages but the legal fees need to paid by Apple. It's a lawsuit in an instance that feedback to retail would suffice. As Apple has shown, they go beyond what a lot of other companies do with regards to those with disabilities, and I would think that constructive feedback would accomplish what the plaintiffs are asking.
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.
I love that guy. He's freaking smart, great sense of humor. Century City is a little closer to our office but I'll go to Santa Monica just to say hi to him
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.
Why should I assume that Google didn't produce. sponsor or facilitate the making of the videos on their official YouTube channel? Furthermore, the way CC works is that it reads the timecode and matches it up with an xml file so nothing is preventing Google from adding that if they cared to.
As far as automatic CC from audio is concerned, that could turn out very badly. Why not do it the right way?
And lastly to paraphrase the ADA criteria on CC, if the entity producing the video gets any federal funding then it is required. And not just CC, but also audio descriptions of the action on the screen is also required for the visually impaired. That last part is sometimes a little ridiculous. For example we were producing some training videos for medical professionals on the topic of digital 3D imaging where clearly a blind person would not be able to enter that field as it requires excellent vision, yet, because it was being offered at a university that received federal funding we had to include the visually impaired audio track.
My best friend is legally blind. She can still see but not much. During our visit to the apple store she bought a few things at the apple store with 2 transactions. She had to sign and did a very good job. The signing space is almost the size of the screen and she didn't even bother to take out her magnifying glass (?) and see where to sign. We also go to target and as long as she knows where the center button is she can put in her pin as fast as I can. She also manages to text,call,read email and use Facebook with the built in disability options. She can even type a text faster than me. I mentioned this article to her and she thought it was ridiculous lawsuit and said she finds touch screens are very neat and not difficult to master.
Why should I assume that Google didn't produce. sponsor or facilitate the making of the videos on their official YouTube channel? Furthermore, the way CC works is that it reads the timecode and matches it up with an xml file so nothing is preventing Google from adding that if they cared to.
I just realized I misunderstood your first post. You were referencing Google's own videos while I was talking about videos in general and Google's efforts to CC those that video owners had not. My bad.
You're absolutely correct that not all the videos Google posts are CC's, which they mention. . Most that I glanced at had CC available and even in languages besides English. But in any case you may be correct. Apple might absolutely be making a more serious effort than Google to assure that all (or nearly all) can be enjoyed by the hearing impaired. Thanks for the mention and apologies for the misread.
All drive thru windows discriminate against the blind. Ice cream stores discriminate against the lactose intolerant. Wheaties discriminates against those with a gluten allergy. Don't get me started on the Big 3 (Jif, Skippy, & Peter Pan) and how they simply refuse to help those with nut allergies.
You were referencing Google's own videos while I was talking about videos in general and Google's efforts to CC those that video owners had not. My bad.
I've seen the option for Google to try to automatically generate CC in YouTube and I tried it once as an experiment. It was absolutely awful transcoding, totally unusable. I thought at first I could clean it up but it was so bad that was impossible so I started from scratch. But to their credit they do offer some decent interface tools to accomplish that.
I have a 4 year old nephew who was born blind. He is infatuated with my iPhone and Siri. (Especially 'Talking Carl) we went to the Apple Store to look at iPads and I was amazed at the level of personal support they were offering to him.
I wonder if the plaintiffs brought this up with the mgr or even Apple customer service first.
There were NO plaintiffs. Just a bloodsucking lawyer who filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of blind people. He is not asking damages and is only asking to be paid his fees. He's willing to be bought off too, if Apple were to do so.
Comments
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.
Lawyers can collect fees from a company in violation of this type of law even if the only remedy provided is an injunction. Money damages are not required.
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.
Problem is that politely asking will inevitably relegate this issue to the backburner. And if Apple upgraded its stores for better accessibility on its own initiative, then those actions potentially run afoul of activist shareholders/muckrakers like NCPPR who would claim that Apple is not focusing enough on ROI. Citing ADA compliance and filing suit pretty much ensures that this will get high level attention, and the threat of legal action takes this issue off the table for someone like NCPPR that might want to try to make political hay out of it at Apple's expense.
If this is the case, then why is the lawsuit not seeking damages and only seeking remedies?
The lawsuit isn't seeking damages but the legal fees need to paid by Apple. It's a lawsuit in an instance that feedback to retail would suffice. As Apple has shown, they go beyond what a lot of other companies do with regards to those with disabilities, and I would think that constructive feedback would accomplish what the plaintiffs are asking.
"Apple discriminates against the visually impaired". Good luck with that angle.
If that one does not work for you, you may want to try "Apple discriminates against gays" next.
And the sig isn't even 100% of the time. I bought like $300 in stuff the other day and my card didn't ask for a sig
I love that guy. He's freaking smart, great sense of humor. Century City is a little closer to our office but I'll go to Santa Monica just to say hi to him
Then they'd have to sue themselves because they can't see their monitor.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Google
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.
Why should I assume that Google didn't produce. sponsor or facilitate the making of the videos on their official YouTube channel? Furthermore, the way CC works is that it reads the timecode and matches it up with an xml file so nothing is preventing Google from adding that if they cared to.
As far as automatic CC from audio is concerned, that could turn out very badly. Why not do it the right way?
And lastly to paraphrase the ADA criteria on CC, if the entity producing the video gets any federal funding then it is required. And not just CC, but also audio descriptions of the action on the screen is also required for the visually impaired. That last part is sometimes a little ridiculous. For example we were producing some training videos for medical professionals on the topic of digital 3D imaging where clearly a blind person would not be able to enter that field as it requires excellent vision, yet, because it was being offered at a university that received federal funding we had to include the visually impaired audio track.
You're absolutely correct that not all the videos Google posts are CC's, which they mention. . Most that I glanced at had CC available and even in languages besides English. But in any case you may be correct. Apple might absolutely be making a more serious effort than Google to assure that all (or nearly all) can be enjoyed by the hearing impaired. Thanks for the mention and apologies for the misread.
This suit is frivolous, plain and simple.
because?
All drive thru windows discriminate against the blind. Ice cream stores discriminate against the lactose intolerant. Wheaties discriminates against those with a gluten allergy. Don't get me started on the Big 3 (Jif, Skippy, & Peter Pan) and how they simply refuse to help those with nut allergies.
I am convinced that Apple did nothing wrong here.
I've seen the option for Google to try to automatically generate CC in YouTube and I tried it once as an experiment. It was absolutely awful transcoding, totally unusable. I thought at first I could clean it up but it was so bad that was impossible so I started from scratch. But to their credit they do offer some decent interface tools to accomplish that.
If this is the case, then why is the lawsuit not seeking damages and only seeking remedies?
He is also seeking his fees. By not seeking damages, he's hoping Apple will slip him a few tens of thousands to make him go away.
I wonder if the plaintiffs brought this up with the mgr or even Apple customer service first.
There were NO plaintiffs. Just a bloodsucking lawyer who filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of blind people. He is not asking damages and is only asking to be paid his fees. He's willing to be bought off too, if Apple were to do so.
There were NO plaintiffs.
It's not past tense.
Plaintiff is David New.