The argument that providing reasonable access for blind/vision-impaired visitors/customers implies an equal need to provide translations into every language on the planet is a straw man. Last time I looked, the inability to speak English was not a disability (in any legal sense) although it's certainly a disadvantage in Australia! I don't know of anywhere that requires businesses to provide services in anything other than the official language/s of the country.
Target apparently provided discounts that were available only online. They built their site in a way which made those discounts inaccessible to blind people and refused to change the site when the problem was politely pointed out to them. An equivalent bricks-and-mortar equivalent would perhaps be to offer discount vouchers that were not available to people in wheelchairs. If you could rely on businesses to act in a non-discriminatory way because otherwise a group of their potential customers would shop elsewhere, anti-discrimination legislation would not be necessary. And no-one would ever miss out on a job for which they were the best-qualified applicant merely because of their gender/ ethnic background/ sexuality etc etc etc. Elizabeth www.spiegelweb.com.au ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
