OK< speaking because I am paraplegic, a piece of plywood would do just fine to get someone up a step, now if you are in a building that just has a small lip, I do not use a ramp when I go to my mother's house, it's called pop a wheelie and get your Arz in the door. Now those that jump and run for a lawsuit is just dumb and have nothing better to do they prey upon those that do not know. If I was someone that knew someone that did that I would tell them that if they are such a pro then perhaps they should start a group and inform others of how to handle parties of those that use a wheelchair and me personally would have to say something to the idiot that ran to a lawyer just for the lawsuit, that is just stupid and looking for trouble down the road and a rep so I guess they do not want many friends. Please, just because you are in a wheelchair does not mean that you are dead!,,,,, do something with your life! And for those of you that do not believe I am in a wheelchair I will be more than glad to show you a pic just email me,,,, I am not one that takes no for an answer and just let others do things for me.... I am one of those that do use a wheelchair and can provide for myself and others.
Sherri Graphics & Web Designing, LLC (941)429-5005 (941)525-3955 Cell (941)426-8117 Fax/Phone (877)447-8932 Have a great day. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://webgraphicdesigning.com Save on your next Vacation/Travel Check out our online travel site and save money. As independent certified referral travel agents (RTA's), we offer the same travel vendors you already know at prices which rival Orbitz, Expedia, & Travelocity. You're already booking online...why not book with someone you know..."us!" -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy Johnson Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:59 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Lawsuits for inaccessible websites In the US, there already has been a few lawsuits against big name corporations, I believe Southwest Airlines and Holiday Inn both settled. The current one is Target http://www.jimthatcher.com/law-target.htm. I feel, maybe incorrectly, that current law suits at least in the US are brought against large big name organizations for a reason. The importance of Target has to do with the American with Disabilities Act and the question whether this law has to expand to include the virtual world has to adhere to the same accessibility standards as the brick and mortar world. Nancy On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Rick Lecoat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21 Aug 2008, at 17:56, Jon Warner wrote: > >> If I hosted a party, of course I would do my best to accommodate >> everyone's needs but to receive a court summons several days later because i >> had not installed a wheelchair ramp, for example, is surely wrong. > > The wheelchair ramp analogy, whilst not perfect, is a useful one I think. To > refer to the example you used, I don't see that anyone would expect you to > install a wheelchair ramp for the sake of a one-off private party (although > if you invited your wheelchair-using friends they might get a bit p**sed off > if you hadn't catered for them). I guess the equivalent of that on the > internet is a personal site or blog which, whilst existing on the public > internet, makes no attempt to provide content aimed at the wider public, and > is simply a vanity site of one sort or another. > > However, a site that provides a service to the wider public (be that in the > form of information, professional debate, selling a product or service, or > anything else like that), then the analogous 'real world' experience would > be that of a shop or library or seminar venue not installing a ramp, and > that of course is a very different situation because the service provided > has an implied invitation to the public as a whole. To use your party > analogy, the private party would be a nightclub open to all-comers; whether > they have to pay to enjoy the service is immaterial, the implied invitation > to the public is there. > > In the vanity site situation I guess that the more personal the site content > the harder it would be to bring discrimination case (though I /suppose/ that > someone could argue -- just -- that they were desperately interested in what > you had for breakfast and that since the site is on the public internet they > have a right to be able to access it); with the second situation, however, > the 'service offered to the public' aspect means that the potential for a > law suit is very clear. > > Just my take. > > -- > Rick Lecoat > www.sharkattack.co.uk > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
