Oooh - Court Rules Websites Subject to ADA

35 replies
This is a big deal ...

Netflix has been sued for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") for not providing closed captioning for the deaf of video streamed from its website.

Netflix filed a motion saying it had no liability and a website is not subject to the ADA. The court disagreed and ruled against Netflix.

A good article about this is here:

Will the Americans with Disabilities Act tear a hole in Internet law? | Ars Technica

Want to start providing closed captioning for your marketing videos? Making your links and sites more accessible for the blind?

Although, as noted by the article, other courts have held websites are not subject to the ADA because they are not physical locations open to the public - I easily see this interpretation being changed through the courts or Congress.

Why shouldn't Facebook or Google, massively important sites to society be fully accessible to the disabled? Amazon has displaced many physical stores. So if a physical store is gone and replaced by a digital site, you're SOL if you're disabled?

.
#ada #court #rules #subject #websites
  • Profile picture of the author FredJones
    That sounds absolutely weird to me. So in efffect, does that mean every single content (webpage) needs to be presented in every manner possible so that people with eveyr possible disability can access the content? Or at least so for sales pages?

    Sounds perfectly absurd.
    Signature

    $1 gold: WSO That Instantly Transforms You Into A Content Production Engine

    $2.95 GoDaddy .com domains today: Click here.
    I am offering a free website - get it now (and they offer you a free domain with this).
    Find high-commission easy Amazon niches within 5 seconds here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506436].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AceOfShirts
    I hope that doesn't mean we have to make audio files for all of our content sites for blind people.

    Can you imagine if YouTube had to close caption every video on their site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506454].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    I am surprised that Netflix got zapped for that...

    Most movies have captioning in them, don't they?

    In the 1990's, I had a lot of back and forth communication with a fellow who is blind. He actually worked with teaching the technology to the blind.

    Even in the 1990's, most blind folks online used software that read the words on the screen to them.

    I know of at least two blind Warriors who frequent this forum. To my knowledge, both of them also use readers to "hear" my brilliant quips.

    Now I realize this story has more to do with the deaf than the blind... So maybe technology cannot help solve this one.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506474].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PPC-Coach
    Just checking but I'm Canadian, this should not affect me at all should it?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506476].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author marciayudkin
      Accessibility to the disabled online is important. I'm in favor of it. I recently found out, from a blind customer, that my shopping cart uses a "captcha" that doesn't have an audio alternative and therefore she was unable to complete her order.

      I complained to 1shoppingcart, and their attitude was that if enough people "vote" for adding an audio alternative, they will add it.

      I don't think disability access should be subject to a vote.

      Anybody who is reading this who doesn't have a disability, please remember that anything can happen to you at any time, especially as you get older. Count your blessings and don't shut the door on the disabled.

      Marcia Yudkin
      Signature
      Check out Marcia Yudkin's No-Hype Marketing Academy for courses on copywriting, publicity, infomarketing, marketing plans, naming, and branding - not to mention the popular "Marketing for Introverts" course.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506513].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I agree sites should be accessible to the disabled.

        I don't agree on this ruling as I think it is over reaching. A Netflix customer can receive the same movies on dvd by mail and have closed captioning. It's not a denial of service - but a demand that every form of service be provided. It's like requiring ramps installed at every entrance to a building.

        Why hasn't it been done already by Netflix and others? Because it affects less than 20 out of 1000 people....and half of those are over age 65.

        This ruling is part of a recent trend -

        BAC Rutland » Blog Archive » Groundbreaking Reversal in Movie Theater Disability Case

        9th circuit court? That explains a lot:p
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I'm going to work on being less condescending
        (Condescending means to talk down to people)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506864].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
        Banned
        Originally Posted by marciayudkin View Post


        I don't think disability access should be subject to a vote.

        Marcia Yudkin
        What should it be subject to, dictatorial decree?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6508313].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          How the hell do you use Skype if you have a speaking disability?
          You use the text function - just like you can use dvds with captioning from Netflix.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

          I'm going to work on being less condescending
          (Condescending means to talk down to people)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6508971].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Keith
    I am with Bill, netflix seems like a bit of an odd one to target for this for the reasons he gave.

    My thoughts just race with how impractical it is for every business to serve every person all of the time. I can just see the adult industry video sites laughing their heads off at this. Their product is just not designed to work for people who can't see or hear.

    Some products are just like that. Its not that anyone sets out to make things that blind or deaf people can't use, but I am pretty much ok with GM and Ford not selling cars to blind folks.

    Call it discrimination if you want to, but we all have limitations. Some of our limitations are more detrimental to our ability to do certain things than others, but we all have limitations.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506606].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by David Keith View Post

      Some products are just like that. Its not that anyone sets out to make things that blind or deaf people can't use, but I am pretty much ok with GM and Ford not selling cars to blind folks.

      Call it discrimination if you want to, but we all have limitations. Some of our limitations are more detrimental to our ability to do certain things than others, but we all have limitations.

      Great point.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506615].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rashell
      Originally Posted by David Keith View Post

      Some products are just like that. Its not that anyone sets out to make things that blind or deaf people can't use, but I am pretty much ok with GM and Ford not selling cars to blind folks.

      Call it discrimination if you want to, but we all have limitations. Some of our limitations are more detrimental to our ability to do certain things than others, but we all have limitations.
      Who needs GM or Ford. Google will fill that spot

      The worst type of limitation is the kind that perceives the world in a box of impossibilities you just have to live with.

      Rashell
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6512425].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author briankoz
    I'm pretty sure there's software and other solutions that could help blind people, for instance, hear text ... or deaf people see text ... for almost anything out there. I wonder why they'd specifically require a company to be the one providing that.

    I've had two clients (that I know of) that were blind and used a fairly complicated software of mine. One specifically asked me ahead of time if I thought he'd be okay with it, and I actually said that he might want to pass on it as I don't think it'd be all that easy to use in that case.

    To my shock, that same guy told me a week later that he got it and was using it just fine.

    I do think that when possible, businesses should keep in mind those that have some kind of a disability, but it's tough to nearly impossible to help everyone.

    Brian
    Signature
    WebFire.com -- Over 25 Tools to Get Free Traffic, Rankings, Leads, and Exposure!
    MobileAutoresponder.com -- Build a Mobile List and Send Unlimited Text Messages!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506800].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Raydal
    I had a blind lecturer in grad school about 10 years my junior
    and he was exceptional. A few years ago he graduated with his
    Ph.D the very first in his field.

    When he found out that I did copywriting he borrowed my
    books and read them all! (scan and read). He could
    repeat entire books in the Bible from memory in the
    original language! This gave me a lot of respect for
    the disabled. And he always reminded the class that
    anyone could become disabled some time in life.

    "Disable" is not "unable".

    -Ray Edwards
    Signature
    The most powerful and concentrated copywriting training online today bar none! Autoresponder Writing Email SECRETS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506868].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul1234
    The disabled have $800 billion income (that's just the U.S.) and have health, wealth and happiness problems just like everyone else - a massive audience mostly ignored by marketers.
    Signature

    Paul Turner

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6506921].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
      Why shouldn't Facebook or Google, massively important sites to society be fully accessible to the disabled? Amazon has displaced many physical stores. So if a physical store is gone and replaced by a digital site, you're SOL if you're disabled?
      At the risk of sounding insensitive, which I am not, I can think of a few good reasons as to why not.

      The first being that this is a backdoor method for the control politicians have been drooling over in anticipation, for years, concerning da net. Incrementalism is an incredibly real, incredibly serious and incredibly dangerous enemy when it comes to freedoms and liberties.

      Want to achieve net censorship like the politburo of Red China but know you, as a politician of the Western World, cannot pull it off through the front door? Simple. Walk in the back door. Walk in the back door while adorning yourself with the title of 'Most Magnificent Savior of the Helpless, Downtrodden and Unfortunate' and easily establish the precedent of the threat of JAIL, or much, much worse if you do not do on your website what the courts, bureaucrats and politicians demand you to do.

      Which is precisely what this ruling does. Do what the government tells you, as far as the construction and the content of your website, else they will KILL you.

      And, no, that is absolutely not an over dramatization of the threat of death for non-compliance. It is reality. Do what they tell you or they shut you down. Refuse to be shut down or subvert their efforts and they come to arrest you. Refuse them the authority to arrest you and defend yourself, your personal liberties and freedoms, and they send in a para-military organization disguised as a civil police force (SWAT team) to put a bullet in your head.

      Every single law on the books is backed by the authority of the government to put a bullet in your head if you refuse compliance and defend yourself from government forcing compliance upon you.

      And that is not an overstatement - it is fact.

      Umm, no thanks. I think I shall pass on that, thank you very much.

      This is obviously an issue of lines, kindsvater, and where they are drawn. If these sites are so massively [pretty strong word counselor - makes it sound like these sites are threads which hold the fabric of society together versus the reality that a couple of the sites you mention being nothing more than entertainment sites] important to society, what is next? How 'bout the unfortunate disabled who, because of their disability, are in a situation where they cannot even afford a computer or internet connection? Do you demand Dell to issue them computers out of a sense of fairness - to able them to access the net which they are unable to do because of a lack of money? A lack of money that is directly tied to their disability? After all, this is now apparently an issue of sites that are 'massively important to society' according to you.

      Is it the numbers that use these sites that determine its massive importance? If so, it would appear, then, that the SuperBowl is the most massively [your word], socially important television program in the US.

      If not the numbers than what? And decide by who? Decided by government, that's who. By bureaucrats, politicians and political appointees in the form of judges.

      From wiki:

      In 2008, effective January 1, 2009, the ADAAA broadened the interpretations and added to the ADA examples of "major life activities" including, but not limited to, "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working" as well as the operation of several specified "major bodily functions."

      Let's take just one of those. Speaking. Well, if Facebook, Google and Netflix must be ADA compliant, so too must Skype. How the hell do you use Skype if you have a speaking disability?

      Perhaps the courts rule that Skype must now provide some sort of vocalization software that allows one to skype while typing? Or, at least skype might have to WASTE millions of dollars on a legal team because a lawyer somewhere decide to sue skype under the ADA while pointing to this horrible, horrible legal precedent that has just been set.

      I am not insensitive guys and gals. I am not making light of people's disabilities that hamper their ability to access things that those without disabilities have no problem accessing.

      Neither am I insnesitive of the periously slippery slope this forces Internet Freedom to walk down.

      All of this governmental demanded fair access won't mean diddly squat if, in the end, what the disabled person is accessing is a

      GOVERNMENT CENSORED INTERNET

      Will it?

      Which is precisely the road rulings like this have us walking down. Incrementalism. It won't happen over night, but just give it time.

      Sweet, I wanna be just like China or the former Soviet Union.

      I understand people's sentiment and the benefits some look to achieve. It is not those I criticize. The problem is that the negative effects outweigh the benefits of rulings like this in my far from humble opinion. The trickle down effect is enormous and continues for years after rulings like this. Want to ensure Google and Facebook own da net and do not have to worry about upstarts dethroning them? Simple. Pass a whole bunch of regulations that make the entrance of any future competition not viable due to the financial costs of compliance with governmental regulations.

      This is a power consolidation, by government, over the internet. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't kid yourself due to being a compassionate human (which I am) and wanting to help those less fortunate than yourself (which I do).

      I am trained in Swift Water Rescue from my years as a white water raft guide. The first rule is simple: Do not attempt a rescue that puts yourself at risk of also needing to be rescued, no matter how dire the situation. This is because if you do, the next rescuer now has two people to try to rescue.

      In this case, through compassion, do not try to help the disabled access da net easier if the net result is reduced access and freedom for the both of you in the end. That is what this ruling and those that support it are doing - jumping in the river to try to save a life with the inevitable and foreseeable conclusion of both of you being stuck in the middle of a violent rapid needing to be rescued by someone else.

      These are noble issues to want to help people with - just make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot while doing so.

      Keep the damn government the hell off of the net. The only thing their increased presence will do is ensure the acceleration of the demise of freedom, both online and off.
      Signature
      One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

      - Seldom Seen Smith
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6507939].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
        Before I reply I want to let everyone know, who doesn't already, I have a physical disability.


        Originally Posted by FredJones View Post

        That sounds absolutely weird to me. So in efffect, does that mean every single content (webpage) needs to be presented in every manner possible so that people with eveyr possible disability can access the content? Or at least so for sales pages?

        Sounds perfectly absurd.
        Suggestions for sites are things like text only versions, using alt tags and having a site map.


        http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility

        http://www.ada.gov/websites2.htm

        Originally Posted by Ace Of Shirts View Post

        I hope that doesn't mean we have to make audio files for all of our content sites for blind people.

        Can you imagine if YouTube had to close caption every video on their site.
        YouTube has a feature now that does CC on all/most videos. Technology is there to automate it

        Originally Posted by tpw View Post

        I am surprised that Netflix got zapped for that...

        Most movies have captioning in them, don't they?
        Converting the movie loses it. Netflix and others have been adding them for several years. There are also two types. One hardware based and one built-in to the movie itself.[/QUOTE]

        Originally Posted by David Keith View Post

        I am with Bill, netflix seems like a bit of an odd one to target for this for the reasons he gave.

        My thoughts just race with how impractical it is for every business to serve every person all of the time. I can just see the adult industry video sites laughing their heads off at this. Their product is just not designed to work for people who can't see or hear.
        So blind people can't get pleasure from the audio? Deaf people can't enjoy the video with CC?

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        I don't agree on this ruling as I think it is over reaching. A Netflix customer can receive the same movies on dvd by mail and have closed captioning.
        Not all of them are on both. Plus it would cost more and take longer to get the same "watch time"[/QUOTE]

        Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

        At the risk of sounding insensitive, which I am not, I can think of a few good reasons as to why not.
        blah blah blah.

        Please dont turn enforcing net accessibility into a governmental rant.

        --

        ADA enforcement isnt the same for every business. The law also mentions reasonable accomendations.
        Signature
        Screw You, NameCheap!
        $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

        SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509238].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

          Deaf people can't enjoy the video with CC?

          Closed Captioning on porn. :p

          I'd think the visual stimulation would be enough, but I wonder how to inflect the different types of moans in the Closed Captioning system...

          Not to be insensitive... I just thought this funny...
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509349].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            Closed Captioning on porn. :p

            I'd think the visual stimulation would be enough, but I wonder how to inflect the different types of moans in the Closed Captioning system...

            Not to be insensitive... I just thought this funny...
            They actual put "moans" and "oooh" type stuff. Went to a "Gentlemans" Club and they had the CC on one of the tvs.

            But we both know its all about the dialog. :p
            Signature
            Screw You, NameCheap!
            $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

            SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509435].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
            When the Internet first started there talk about disability access. A lot of that went away to help make sure the net grew quickly and became incredibly useful to the world as a whole.

            Reminds me of the issue of not taxing sales on the web so ecommerce could grow and develop faster, even if there was harm to some offline businesses.

            But now that the Internet has started to mature some issues are going to be revisited. Taxes have been one issue. Access will be another.

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509461].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
          Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

          blah blah blah.

          Please dont turn enforcing net accessibility into a governmental rant.
          That leaves me a bit confused Garrie. If I do not like the enforcing, I am not allowed to criticize the enforcer? Seems like a convenient way to avoid the full conversation and to try to dismiss someone's opinion.

          This is an issue that everyone must take a stand on a decide for themselves, obviously. To leave out of the discussion the future ramifications and courses they will likely take, based upon history and reality is shortsighted and naive. To refuse to discuss the role of government in this issue is intellectually dishonest, as it stems from them. It cannot be ignored.

          Please don't turn your personal misfortune into a opportunity to dismiss someone's legitimate opinion about the proper role of government regulation concerning the internet. And please don't suggest that talking about the government with this issue and criticizing them is either taboo or inappropriate - 'cause it ain't.

          You are free to close your eyes to the reality of the world and not contemplate the full future ramifications of rulings such as this and the absolute negative effects it has on small businesses that are trying to feed their families, as well as how it serves to entrench the survival of large corporations, as well as how it is the first major step of government gaining long sought control over the net, etc. If you want to.

          You are free to stare down at your feet as you walk this path of governmental control and enforcing of the internet, one step at a time, without ever lifting your head to see where you are actually walking, the path you are on and where it leads. If you want to.

          I don't. And the summation of that thought process I certainly wouldn't describe with a condescending, insultive, blah ... blah ... blah.

          But you can, if you feel so inclined. I have thick skin.

          Tell me, if the government is enforcing, under penalty of death, certain laws and regulations and I do not like them, precisely who do you suggest I aim my criticism at for such policies?

          The Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus?

          I do not know the extent of your disability Garrie, and it is not my business, but on a personal level, I empathize with the additional struggles you have in life and wish you the best in meeting those challenges.

          Your mind appears to work just fine though, so use it and understand that my thoughts were not a governmental rant - they were the logical projection of what is to follow from rulings like this. Disagree with my conclusions if you want, but at least provide something of an intellectual response as to why you disagree versus a simple, ineffective insult.

          I am assuming you support the ruling?

          Oh, btw, as of an accident two years ago, I too have a physical disability and am covered by ADA. As well as qualifying for government disability in the form of a paycheck, which I do not utilize. I only mention it as it is hard to not assume from your declaration that you think it somehow qualifies your opinion to be more valid.

          It doesn't.
          Signature
          One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

          - Seldom Seen Smith
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510076].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

            That leaves me a bit confused Garrie. If I do not like the enforcing, I am not allowed to criticize the enforcer? Seems like a convenient way to avoid the full conversation and to try to dismiss someone's opinion.

            The problem is that we are able to discuss laws and legislation in the forum as it might affect our businesses.

            We cannot however go off on matters of politics.

            You are walking very close to the line, if not on both sides of it.
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510094].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
              Originally Posted by tpw View Post

              The problem is that we are able to discuss laws and legislation in the forum as it might affect our businesses.

              We cannot however go off on matters of politics.

              You are walking very close to the line, if not on both sides of it.
              To suggest that what this ruling represents is anything other than governmental control on the internet is not accurate. It is, by definition, what this ruling does - it allows the government to control the content and presentation of information on the internet.

              To ignore the fact that members of Congress have already expressed a desire to craft more legislation to execute more governmental control over the internet is ignoring a big part of the equation concerning the ramifications of this ruling. I referred to it as shortsighted.

              And that is pertinent to every online business. Every offline business, some to a greater extent than others, must contemplate future legislation based upon legal precedents regarding their industry. To not do so is irresponsible in a business sense and something that every major, successful corporation does when planning and safeguarding for the future. And to contemplate such, they only things they can analyze in order to make predictions, as well as business decisions regarding those predictions, is to look at what their government has told them they want to do, what their government has done in similar situations in the past, as well as much broader look regarding the centuries of history we have regarding the governments worldwide of the past up to the present, and then sprinkle in a dash of human nature on top for the final piece of data to process.

              If that is talking politics, I suppose I am guilty as charged?

              That was my intent with that post. To not only express my opinion on this current ruling and answer the question the OP posed to us all, but to try to predict the future course of events this ruling can trigger, events that are incredibly important to internet business owners. None of us are mind readers or perfect communicators, so maybe it came across differently.

              And, as I am a part of the none that cannot read minds, I don't know which parts of my post you thought were straddling the line. If I had to venture a guess I might lean towards the words freedom and liberty being a part of your assessment.

              If so, well, freedom and liberty are not issues of politics. They are a state of being unto which we are all born, every human on this planet, and the attack upon that state begins at birth and must be vocally defended and the state of being championed. Not politics - a state of existence that belongs to each of us and must be guarded.

              Regardless of all of that, my intention was neither to ruffle feathers nor violate the rules of WF by posting in this thread. I have clearly stated my opinion, tried to provide some thoughts and reasoning behind it and don't believe it needs any further defense or clarification and have zero problems letting those opinions stand as is, for eternity, on da net for anyone to read and consider that might stumble across them.

              With that, I shall bid you all ado in this thread so as not to contribute to its deterioration and to heed the advice of Mr. Platt, who's opinion I have no problems with even if I disagree with it, as he has much more time spent on this board than I, giving me no reason to not assume that others might also think myself to be straddling a line I have no desire to straddle concerning the etiquette of this forum.

              Toodles.
              Signature
              One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

              - Seldom Seen Smith
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6511605].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author davezan
                Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

                To suggest that what this ruling represents is anything other than governmental control on the internet is not accurate. It is, by definition, what this ruling does - it allows the government to control the content and presentation of information on the internet.
                FYI, this is a civil dispute between a for-profit company and a non-profit org. It
                isn't between a government agency and a private entity, or vice versa.

                If anything, the government - the court in this case - is just a middleman that's
                mandated by law to mediate a disagreement between two private parties. One
                of them can take it as high up as the law allows if they wish and can afford to.

                This decision also has unintended consequences especially for those in the U.S.,
                namely lawyers having a field day with ADA claims against other private entities.
                Signature

                David

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6511966].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jon Patrick
          Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

          YouTube has a feature now that does CC on all/most videos.
          I noticed that they other day and turned them on to see how well it works. It read like dialogue written by a typewriter monkey on acid (at least for the video I was watching).
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510506].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Paul1234 View Post

      The disabled have $800 billion income (that's just the U.S.) and have health, wealth and happiness problems just like everyone else - a massive audience mostly ignored by marketers.
      What's your source for the $800 Billion number?
      Signature
      Great content can turn your website into a GOLDMINE.

      So why are you are paying for lame copy that just lays there?
      Get noticed with content that gets ATTENTION.
      PM me to get content that gets you NOTICED.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509545].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul1234
        Originally Posted by Blame It On The Caffeine View Post

        What's your source for the $800 Billion number?
        Here's one : Reaching the Disabled Demographic disability news | assistive technology | disability employment
        Signature

        Paul Turner

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510438].message }}

        • That's just some random woman* saying a number. I meant like an actual source- like the U.S. Dept of Commerce.

          How are you defining 'disability' is that ADHD and sleep apnea?




          *"Nadine Vogel, founder and president of Springboard Consulting, which specializes in marketing to the disabled community"
          Signature
          Great content can turn your website into a GOLDMINE.

          So why are you are paying for lame copy that just lays there?
          Get noticed with content that gets ATTENTION.
          PM me to get content that gets you NOTICED.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510483].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by Blame It On The Caffeine View Post

            That's just some random woman* saying a number. I meant like an actual source- like the U.S. Dept of Commerce.

            How are you defining 'disability' is that ADHD and sleep apnea?




            *"Nadine Vogel, founder and president of Springboard Consulting, which specializes in marketing to the disabled community"

            She is not exactly "just some random woman."

            She appears to be an expert in her niche.
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510504].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul1234
            Originally Posted by Blame It On The Caffeine View Post

            That's just some random woman* saying a number. I meant like an actual source- like the U.S. Dept of Commerce.

            How are you defining 'disability' is that ADHD and sleep apnea?




            *"Nadine Vogel, founder and president of Springboard Consulting, which specializes in marketing to the disabled community"
            It not my place to define disability. The actual source is the U.S. census.
            Signature

            Paul Turner

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510540].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jakebvs85
    Wow, I'm not quite sure if its really applicable. I mean how about youtube???
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509698].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      My daughter is friends with someone who is blind and he has no problems reading
      web pages. I'm not sure exactly how it's done but he has some kind of a reader
      on his device that connects to the Internet, whatever it is. Sorry, don't have
      any details about what he's using, but he manages fine.

      So the technology for the visual impaired is there. How expensive it is, I don't
      know, but it's easily solved barring an enormous expense.

      As for closed captioning, I guess when you make your marketing videos, you
      can include this. Yes, it will take a little more time but it would be a nice thing
      to do and certainly put you in a better light than all those marketers who give
      the industry a bad name.

      It will be interesting to see where this goes as far as legislation.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509894].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        It will be interesting to see where this goes as far as legislation.

        Sorry for going off-topic...

        LOL

        What a suck-up Steve...

        I just noticed your current signature:

        The 2nd Best Newsletter On The Web Next To Paul Myers Talk Biz News...Please See Paul's Sig For A Link To It

        Really Steve? You are second best, right behind Paul? Paul's newsletter is always better than yours?

        And. what if I put Paul's newsletter in the bottom 10%, what would that say about yours? Bottom 10% too? :p

        Comparing your business to someone else's is always a two-edged sword.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509948].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    I'm getting out my baseball bat and beating the owners of Netfilx about their heads and bodies because damnit, the disabled are entitled, and because they are entitled I'm in the right for using my bat on those bad executives at Netflix.

    Let the flaming begin!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6509871].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    That leaves me a bit confused Garrie. If I do not like the enforcing, I am not allowed to criticize the enforcer? Seems like a convenient way to avoid the full conversation and to try to dismiss someone's opinion.
    Bill explained it well.

    You are free to close your eyes to the reality of the world and not contemplate the full future ramifications of rulings such as this and the absolute negative effects it has on small businesses that are trying to feed their families, as well as how it serves to entrench the survival of large corporations, as well as how it is the first major step of government gaining long sought control over the net, etc. If you want to.
    I think your tin hat is on too tight.

    If you want to discuss this, please relate it to how your business could be affected. Not how the big bad guberment is gonna spy on us and take over the interwebs.

    As to you personally referencing me... I have always been torn on the issue of civil rights and private property. If someone doesnt want a ramp, Im not so sure they should be forced to add one. If someone doesnt want to serve blacks, I'm not certain that should be forced too.

    -g
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6510522].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author marketerpro
    There are many issues like this coming down the road. There are congressmen who want internet use to be provided by the government and free ....of course it wouldn't be free for the taxpayers who are paying for it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6512884].message }}

Trending Topics