An anonymous reader writes "A visually impaired gamer has sued Sony because game products allegedly violate the Americans With Disabilities Act. 'According to the suit, Sony ignored repeated requests through postal mail and e-mail to come up with reasonable modifications to its games to make them more accessible.' This suit seems to be a combination of National Federation of the Blind v. Target, which complained of inaccessibility to the visually disabled (which settled for $6 million) and Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., where the US Supreme Court ruled a disabled golfer was entitled to a golf cart where one was not already allowed as a reasonable accommodation. If the plaintiff wins, Sony will have to make 'reasonable accommodations' which are not an 'undue financial burden.' In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony."
I'd hate to to think what this guy would do when he realizes that cameras don't pander to the visually impaired market. On the other hand, I'm blind in one eye so maybe I can take a leaf out of his book and and sue camera companies anyway for products that don't suit my particular physical situation and finally realize that "??? profit" step.
I was born with a crippled left hand making it impossible for me to play an immensely popular game, Guitar Hero.
Should I sue because they didn't accommodate for people with my particular disability? Plenty of people are missing limbs. Why aren't they in an uproar over Guitar Hero?
and what somebody sued and got 6 million dollars from the PGA? I don't think Lee Travino's putting challenge has anywhere near the popularity of Guitar Hero.
What if you were to play around with the frets with your right hand and mod the controller out to replace the strum bar with two foot pedals? (A bit of a roundabout solution, but Its better than the other replies you've gotten...)
What I'd really like to see is the content of these letters that he's sent to Sony. Theres another article linked inside of this one about a guy who is blind and helps other blind people play commercial games through screen readers, surround sound, and menu guides. He's even gone so far as to send mail to developers and publishers to suggest how they might better help the blind.
That could be the key difference between these two. If this guy just sent a bunch of letters about how "OMGZ UR GAME ISH HARD FUR BLIND PEEPS" and then giggled to himself how they didn't respond to him, then he's just being an idiot trying to get some cash out of this. If Sony's been ignoring valid suggestions on how to help and giving him the silent treatment, then he might have a case.
Don't most big companies have a policy of ignoring any letters that are suggestions, to stop people suing the company for royalties if they implement a similar idea?
Intel® or AMD® processor 2.0 GHz or greater 512 MB minimum, 2 GB recommended. 900 MB free disk space (which includes the 400 MB install footprint for a complete installation) Graphics card supported by DirectX 9.0c. 256 MB of video RAM or higher is recommended. Eyes (Ears optional but recommended) 2 Hands (Opposable Thumbs optional but recommended)
Clearly, he should probably be suing the hardware manufacturer. Let's hope his mom has some cash.
Exactly. The problem is, that the line got lost. The line that should be drawn between treating people equally, and preferring a specific group.
The whole concept of making people who are different "special" is the exact opposite of equality. (equality is zero, "special" is positive infinity). It's just as bad as treating people badly. (negative infinity) Also. As the scale is not absolute but relative, treating someone better, means treating everyone else worse. Depends on your standpoint.
The only difference? Preferring people with disadvantages, is preferring disadvantages for society. Not a wise move...
I wish to be treated for *exactly* what I am. (If the person is able to know what I am.) If I am bad at something, don't fuckin' say it is OK! It is NOT! I have to work on that, to be successful in evolution! Period. And if someone is better than me, I don't call him an ass because he says so. If he is right, he has all rights to say so! I can be proud, because he makes humanity as a whole better. Everything else would just be pathetic jealousy of someone with a low self-esteem.
Hawking is a great example. I am better at moving than he is. And I can say that. He is a total genius in physics. And I don't think he has a urge to have a low self-esteem because of his disadvantages. Just as I don't have low self-esteem because of mine.
Conclusion: That's the funny thing: - You can measure the integration of black people in America by the amount of talk that still is needed to mention equality (as something special). - Gays only will become normal parts of society, when the need for a "we are so special" parade goes away. - Feminism only will have reached its final goal, when it stops existing. - Etc, etc, etc. Because not the other extreme is the goal. A loose swinging around the origin between the extremes is.:)
A big difference between the case in the article and the counter-examples most people have been coming up with seems to lie in the legal definition of blindness. Notice that the plaintiff requests better "visual cues" for certain tasks. Brandon likely is legally blind [wikipedia.org] and not actually Helen Keller style blind. I have several friends who are legally blind without glasses or contacts, so the threshold is quite a bit higher than you might be thinking. All Brandon seems to be asking for are some easy UI design
In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony.
That's a fine-sounding liberal opinion, but when did accessibility to a video game, which presupposes a minimum level of vision, become a privilege mandated by the Federal Government? We are not talking about an essential service here, access to government records, we aren't even talking about a visually-impaired person being unable to order products online. It's a video game. Entertainment, no more.
Look, sometimes we can't do fun things that we'd like to do, but it doesn't mean we should start hiring lawyers. There was a time in my life when I'd go rock-climbing (only a few times, but it was fun and I was in pretty good physical shape back then.) Almost thirty years later and I wouldn't even bother trying: totally out of my league now, having been at a desk job for almost that long. So, that being the case, should I start complaining that rock faces should be made "accessible" to me in my "impaired" condition?
You don't understand. The reasoning goes like this:
I'm blind, therefore you have an obligation...
There's nothing that can't be justified by that reasoning. Any time a blind person isn't experiencing perfect joy, you can be argued to have failed in your obligation. It doesn't cross a line. There's no line.
Amusement parks are "entertainment, no more," and they're governed by the ADA as well.
Amusement parks are covered by the ADA because they are commercial facilities.
The ADA specifies 5 covered entities. Tell me which if these is a video game:
* Employment: no * Public Entity: no * Public Transportation: no * Public Accommodation: no * Commercial Facility: no (virtual doesn't count) * Telecommunication: That's as close as you're going to get, but I'm going to go with 'no' on this as well.
A video game is not a commercial facility, nor is it employment, public facility, public transportation, or tele
So is every business covered by the ADA. Keep in mind that, according the article, we're talking about MMORPGs, which are just as much a service as websites, which have already been held to be subject to the ADA.
No, I also mean accessibility to invitees, like people allowed on to the property to conduct business. "Public accommodation" does not mean a "publicly funded and provided accommodation," it means a place that is generally open to the public. The EEOC provides guidance listing such places to include "restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers."
If MMORPGs are considered a public accommodation (as a "place of amu
There's a point where it's just being stupid to be pissed that you can't enjoy a visual medium if you're blind.
I know that people don't read the articles, but I'll write this in bold and in caps so you can read it, since both you and the person doing the suing seem to have something in commoon: LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE SUMMARY - VISUALLY IMPAIRED GAMER SUES SONY
He's not blind. However, without seeing the communications he's had with Sony, there's no way to know if what he's asking is reasonable, or i
It's too bad you had to politicize an otherwise reasonable post and opinion.
That's not much politicizing, and if you can't accept a little of that then why, exactly, are you on Slashdot? How we treat disabled and handicapped people is a very politically-active topic in this country today, so a little politicizing is certainly in order. How we, as a society, divert resources to help the less-advantaged is very much a legitimate political issue. Nor, in case any of you are thinking that, am I advocating that we leave the helpless to suffer on their own. I just don't believe that corporations should be required to accommodate everyone's use of their products, especially in areas where it's clear the application is, well, kinda inappropriate anyway.
Regardless, the point is that a certain class of individuals generally known as "liberals" tend to want to help everyone (for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it makes the liberal feel good about himself) but don't always consider whether that's actually in everyone's best interests.
I doubt it'll provide more profit for Sony. But if Sony lose and are forced to mod their MMORPGs, I think it may mean more profit for gold farmers. Some of the mods are likely to make it easier for bots to navigate and do stuff:).
Why are game companies, or any companies for that matter, required to make every product accessible? I can understand government services, both because of their purpose but also because of the fact that they are paid for by public money (and generally don't actually need to be un-accessible), but products of corporations? If this guy wants to complain to the company and then not buy their products, fine. In fact, that's really the best way to deal with the issue.
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
This has kept a generation of lawyers employed by arguing over the definition of "public accommodation". The strict interpretation limits it to only physical places, which would rule out games. There have been many court battles over expanding the definition. This particular suit, if I read the various summaries correctly (IANAL), would be one of the more far reaching stretches of the definition and could have a significant impact on how much the ADA covers.
In short, it could fund an entire new generation of lawyers by expanding the ADA to an almost unlimited scope. Blind or not, I hope this guy goes down in flames.
AOL settled with the National Organization for the Blind on that one, agreeing to make their client more "accessible". That was in 2000, when AOL's web client mattered.
Target settled their online ADA lawsuit in 2008 [usefularts.us]. But that was related to Target's having physical stores subject to the ADA, and the web site being related to the stores.
The ADA only applies to "commercial speech", where the intent is to sell. In the US, the First Amendment preempts the ADA for non-commercial speech by non-government p
The ADA only applies to "commercial speech", where the intent is to sell. [...] Games aren't usually "commercial speech".
Do advertisements in video games count as "commercial speech"? What about Sony's "official auction site where gamers can sell their in-game items for real money" that the article mentions?
The biggest problem for me personally is raiding. Picture this, if you will, we're mid-raid (10 is bad, 25 a nightmare) and someone dies. My raid leader pipes up: 'Combat rez on xxx now!' As the Druid, this means me and it's time to panic. Somewhere in the mass of moving targets, dead trash mobs and my valiant guild mates is a corpse. I've got to find and rez that corpse now and I have no idea where to find them. I usually yell for the raid leader to mark said fallen soul but it doesn't always happen. Welcome to my nightmare.
Many large organizations today seem to use their customer-facing staff solely as a means for getting rid of people who phone up to complain, or to request things or make enquiries. This isn't necessarily the fault of the staff in question, or the intention of the organization. Yet somehow things get structured so that it becomes the function of the support staff. For instance, I suspect that under-staffing the help desk or measuring performance by calls "resolved" as opposed to customers satisfied tends to push things towards a "When customers call, make them go away, otherwise they're stopping us talking to our customers" mode of operation.
The other problem is that it's pretty easy in a large organization (or even a small, highly bureaucratic one) to get into situations where large swathes of problems are "somebody else's responsibility", or likely "nobody in particular". Much as I dislike the idea of a work environment where inappropriate work is dumped on people, or staff are lumped with resolving things they're not responsible for, at the end of the day the buck ought to stop *somewhere*, even if it's just a customer service supervisor writing back. If a customer has a real and legitimate question to which there is *an* answer but there's *nobody* in the organization whose job description allows or requires them to answer it, you're doing something wrong. It's not possible to satisfy all people all of the time but I think most organizations can do a heck of a lot better than they do!
In this instance, the allegation is that Sony ignored requests made of them. Did they ignore them outright, did they fob off the (potential?) customer, or did they make the effort to respond but the gamer didn't like the answer anyhow? Sony may have done everything as well as they possibly could in this case but they should nonetheless evaluate whether engaging more with the gamer in question could have saved them a court case.
Some of the claims in the case could seem a bit dubious but as the article points out, various other companies have at least allowed 3rd parties to develop plugins that assist disabled gamers. So it's not like anybody's saying Sony must develop (for instance) a braille interface to WoW on their own budget.
The Americans With Disabilities Act was written so loosely that there are so many of these litigious bullshitteries going on nation wide. It is basically a form of extortion facilitated by poorly written 'laws'.
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
I hope sony lobbies to get reform.
I say all of this with the great respect for the disabled and the true intent of the ADA. It is the exploit of the act that bothers me so much.
In this case, Sony makes visual video games and a guy who can't see thinks Sony OWES him a game. That's like being allergic to peanut butter and suing Reeses for not making you a hazelnut cup. THEY DONT OWE YOU A HAZELNUT CUP!
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
This sort of thing sounds horrible when you first hear it, but it's important to remember, most of those business probably were violating the ADA. Maybe they didn't have a ramp going into their store, or whatever. If they had made their business more accessible to begin with, it wouldn't have been a problem.
I'm totally against frivolous lawsuits, but you can't say her lawsuits were frivolous just because there were a lot of them. You have to show that they were frivolous.
I am totally blind, and I have played video games, specifically Punch Out, so I can definitively say that it is possible, at least to play some games. Whether or not this lawsuit is justified depends on many facts that haven't been revealed.
If this guy is expecting the game to be substantially altered, then I think he's wrong, and the ADA (based on my reading) would not support his position. However, if he is simply asking Sony to add some small features to the game that would make it more accessible, then I think his suit is reasonable and he should win.
My understanding of the ADA is that it doesn't allow you to sue to change the laws of the universe. It just allows you to sue when a company does not provide reasonable accommodation when it is within their power to reasonably do so. Unfortunately, the definition of reasonable is quite relative.
Seriously guys, it's easy to go "Tut tut, blind people can't possibly play games, what an unreasonable fellow". But the article says *visually impaired*, which does not necessarily mean total blindness. There are phases in between where you can see the computer screen but it'd be nice if the game didn't have to make it really hard to follow what's happening. Are there really as many people here as the posts would indicate who can't see this distinction?
Also: are you the same crowd of people who bitch at Microsoft for releasing OSes that are too bloated to run on your hardware without an upgrade. You *can* at least upgrade your hardware!
Being disabled myself, I can sympathize with such frustrations... but guess what... even the disabled can be totally unreasonable!
Sure, it's one thing to expect handicapped accessible ramps and bathrooms at places of business which deal directly with the public, but it's something completely different to expect a business to cater to any and every conceivable disability when the person in question isn't even on their property or being dealt with on a personal basis.
Why should this person be suing Sony for problems extending beyond the scope of their hardware's intended use when the guy could just as easily find a 3rd party solution for such issues and get government assistance to acquire it? Are they somehow entitled to a first party solution simply because a third party solution might not be as pretty to use or look at? Is there a reason this person should expect every piece of software/hardware he encounters to have a built-in zoom function, when he could just as easily use something like a display magnifying glass like that featured in the film version of "1984"? And how would they prove that using such an external solution would "damage" them to the point that the only logical solution is to sue not the display hardware's manufacturer, but the manufacturer of other hardware using that display?
After all, is it Sony's fault that this person purchased a TV with pixels too small for them to view the images shown on it adequately?
Next he can sue auto manufacturers for not making cars accessible to the blind.
That lawsuit is entirely possible and winnable under the current ADA. Reform is necessary NOW! Predatory lawyers and litigious garbage (yes, they can be disabled too) are ruining this country and the ADA facilitates it for being written too loosely!
I don't disagree that ADA is written too loosely, but a lot of the abuse depends on the judge. The "reasonable accommodations" part of the act is important.
If there are modifications that can be made without undue financial strain, I don't see a problem with asking the company to modify the game.
The red herrings mentioned elsewhere, about making cars work for the blind and the like, would be examples of UNreasonable accommodations.
The first part of his suit seems reasonable, he claims that Sony should do what other MMOs have done to make the game more accessible to the visually impaired (seems to be a lot of voice-over stuff). The article seems to say that Blizzard allows third party mods that have voice compasses and stuff, so it seems like Sony could easily throw together a few of those (and it would probably net them a larger selection of players so they really should).
However, the second part is what seems ridiculous to me. He claims that Sony's online auction site for selling/buying games isn't fit for the visually impaired. So not only is Sony not allowing him full entertainment of the games, they're actually costing him extra money. That's just stupid. Every computer I've seen within the last 5-6 years has come with some sort of zoom feature for the visually disabled. I know my computer (Alienware bought at the end of 2008) has an Ease of Access section in my start menu with a magnifier, narrator, on-screen keyboard, and voice recognition. They're probably not the best out there considering them came with it, but I'm sure it would allow him to use an auction site.
It depends on the website. I'm no expert and you need an account to view the actual site but the lack of alt texts on the images and using images as titles, here [sony.com], does not bode well for screen readers.
Exactly a judge should be able to look at the WHY reasonable accommodations are required, and work accordingly. Let us just not forget there was a REASON why the ADA was passed, and it wasn't for asshats like this. When my late sister had to go to court over someone stealing her identity the local courthouse, which was built in the 20s, naturally didn't work with her wheelchair, but since there is the ADA they couldn't just tell her to "figure it out" (Which in the 70s they would have done).
So the judge simply thought about it for a few minutes, and had court on the steps during lunch break. It only took them a couple of minutes to get her testimony and get everything resolved in her favor. It didn't cost anyone anything but a little extra time and allowed my sister to have her day in court despite her handicap.
And THAT is why we have the ADA, not so some asshole can play golf or blind guys can play video games. It was so the handicapped couldn't be discriminated against when it came to the important stuff like access to government services. It really burns me up when some douche takes what was a perfectly reasonable request...make it so the handicapped can have access to basic services, and tries to turn it into his/her own personal lotto. Just another proof that scum sucking lawyers and greedy douches are running this country into the ground IMHO.
So, if YOU were Sony, you think that YOU should do so.
But do you think that the law should tell Sony what they SHOULD do?
The point of what I'm talking about is the vague wording of the ADA and how it has led to tons of litigious shakedowns for cash. Because of the vague wording, people whos think that a company should be obliged to do something are enabled to legally FORCE these things (and get paid), despite the topic at hand having almost nothing to do with the true intent of the ADA which is to facilita
Indeed. That would seem to be the next target if a lawsuit were to actually succeed.
The whole point of the Act in question was to assure that basic and essential services were available to the disabled, not that every single potential activity must be catered to. Shall we have laws forcing automakers to make cars that can be driven by the tongue for quadriplegics?
Maybe there's a market out there for video games for the blind, I dunno, but to demand a company do substantial modifications (and for a lot of games, they would be substantial, if possible at all) is ludicrous.
To demand the company make any modifications is ludicrous. If it's profitable then Sony will do it on its own, or not. Who cares? Blind people can't do a lot of things. Video games are one of them.
There's a big difference between meeting standards for government websites and forcing developers to make a different game from what they envisioned.
This got me think though, are there theaters that play movies with subtitles for the hearing impaired? I could see profit from that.
Yep, a lot of theatres do now. Read about the Rear Window Captioning System [wikipedia.org]. You may have watched a movie with it without even realizing.
What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Funny)
And modeling agencies for not letting the visually impaired feel the models.
Parent
Re:What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Informative)
In the British Museum, there's a notice saying something along the lines of "Do not touch these exhibits, unless you're on the blind tour"
Parent
Re:What next? Cameras? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
this is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I was born with a crippled left hand making it impossible for me to play an immensely popular game, Guitar Hero.
Should I sue because they didn't accommodate for people with my particular disability? Plenty of people are missing limbs. Why aren't they in an uproar over Guitar Hero?
and what somebody sued and got 6 million dollars from the PGA? I don't think Lee Travino's putting challenge has anywhere near the popularity of Guitar Hero.
Controller Mod? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't most big companies have a policy of ignoring any letters that are suggestions, to stop people suing the company for royalties if they implement a similar idea?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly it's a hardware issue (Score:4, Funny)
The software requirements clearly stated:
Clearly, he should probably be suing the hardware manufacturer. Let's hope his mom has some cash.
Parent
Re:this is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The problem is, that the line got lost. The line that should be drawn between treating people equally, and preferring a specific group.
The whole concept of making people who are different "special" is the exact opposite of equality. (equality is zero, "special" is positive infinity). It's just as bad as treating people badly. (negative infinity)
Also. As the scale is not absolute but relative, treating someone better, means treating everyone else worse. Depends on your standpoint.
The only difference? Preferring people with disadvantages, is preferring disadvantages for society. Not a wise move...
I wish to be treated for *exactly* what I am. (If the person is able to know what I am.) If I am bad at something, don't fuckin' say it is OK! It is NOT! I have to work on that, to be successful in evolution! Period. And if someone is better than me, I don't call him an ass because he says so. If he is right, he has all rights to say so! I can be proud, because he makes humanity as a whole better. Everything else would just be pathetic jealousy of someone with a low self-esteem.
Hawking is a great example. I am better at moving than he is. And I can say that. He is a total genius in physics. And I don't think he has a urge to have a low self-esteem because of his disadvantages. Just as I don't have low self-esteem because of mine.
Conclusion: That's the funny thing: :)
- You can measure the integration of black people in America by the amount of talk that still is needed to mention equality (as something special).
- Gays only will become normal parts of society, when the need for a "we are so special" parade goes away.
- Feminism only will have reached its final goal, when it stops existing.
- Etc, etc, etc.
Because not the other extreme is the goal. A loose swinging around the origin between the extremes is.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OS-impaired (Score:5, Funny)
I'm an operating-system-ly impaired gamer. I'm using Debian to run my computer. I demand that all Windows games be immediately released for Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Crossing the line ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony.
That's a fine-sounding liberal opinion, but when did accessibility to a video game, which presupposes a minimum level of vision, become a privilege mandated by the Federal Government? We are not talking about an essential service here, access to government records, we aren't even talking about a visually-impaired person being unable to order products online. It's a video game. Entertainment, no more.
Look, sometimes we can't do fun things that we'd like to do, but it doesn't mean we should start hiring lawyers. There was a time in my life when I'd go rock-climbing (only a few times, but it was fun and I was in pretty good physical shape back then.) Almost thirty years later and I wouldn't even bother trying: totally out of my league now, having been at a desk job for almost that long. So, that being the case, should I start complaining that rock faces should be made "accessible" to me in my "impaired" condition?
Please.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony.
That's a fine-sounding liberal opinion
Finally, an opinion on Slashdot worthy of being humble!
I'm blind, therefore you have an obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand. The reasoning goes like this:
There's nothing that can't be justified by that reasoning. Any time a blind person isn't experiencing perfect joy, you can be argued to have failed in your obligation. It doesn't cross a line. There's no line.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amusement parks are "entertainment, no more," and they're governed by the ADA as well.
Amusement parks are covered by the ADA because they are commercial facilities.
The ADA specifies 5 covered entities. Tell me which if these is a video game:
* Employment: no
* Public Entity: no
* Public Transportation: no
* Public Accommodation: no
* Commercial Facility: no (virtual doesn't count)
* Telecommunication: That's as close as you're going to get, but I'm going to go with 'no' on this as well.
A video game is not a commercial facility, nor is it employment, public facility, public transportation, or tele
Re:Crossing the line ... (Score:4, Informative)
So is every business covered by the ADA. Keep in mind that, according the article, we're talking about MMORPGs, which are just as much a service as websites, which have already been held to be subject to the ADA.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, I also mean accessibility to invitees, like people allowed on to the property to conduct business. "Public accommodation" does not mean a "publicly funded and provided accommodation," it means a place that is generally open to the public. The EEOC provides guidance listing such places to include "restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers."
If MMORPGs are considered a public accommodation (as a "place of amu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
That's the best Slashdot disclaimer I've seen yet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know that people don't read the articles, but I'll write this in bold and in caps so you can read it, since both you and the person doing the suing seem to have something in commoon: LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE SUMMARY - VISUALLY IMPAIRED GAMER SUES SONY
He's not blind. However, without seeing the communications he's had with Sony, there's no way to know if what he's asking is reasonable, or i
Re:Crossing the line ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a fine-sounding liberal opinion...
It's too bad you had to politicize an otherwise reasonable post and opinion.
That's not much politicizing, and if you can't accept a little of that then why, exactly, are you on Slashdot? How we treat disabled and handicapped people is a very politically-active topic in this country today, so a little politicizing is certainly in order. How we, as a society, divert resources to help the less-advantaged is very much a legitimate political issue. Nor, in case any of you are thinking that, am I advocating that we leave the helpless to suffer on their own. I just don't believe that corporations should be required to accommodate everyone's use of their products, especially in areas where it's clear the application is, well, kinda inappropriate anyway.
Regardless, the point is that a certain class of individuals generally known as "liberals" tend to want to help everyone (for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it makes the liberal feel good about himself) but don't always consider whether that's actually in everyone's best interests.
Parent
I doubt it'll provide more profit for Sony (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
This could backfire (Score:4, Funny)
Knowing Sony, they might also consider the mass slaughter of the physically impaired to be a financially responsible action.
Public Accommodation (Score:5, Interesting)
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
This has kept a generation of lawyers employed by arguing over the definition of "public accommodation". The strict interpretation limits it to only physical places, which would rule out games. There have been many court battles over expanding the definition. This particular suit, if I read the various summaries correctly (IANAL), would be one of the more far reaching stretches of the definition and could have a significant impact on how much the ADA covers.
In short, it could fund an entire new generation of lawyers by expanding the ADA to an almost unlimited scope. Blind or not, I hope this guy goes down in flames.
For reference: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+297 [duke.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AOL settled with the National Organization for the Blind on that one, agreeing to make their client more "accessible". That was in 2000, when AOL's web client mattered.
Target settled their online ADA lawsuit in 2008 [usefularts.us]. But that was related to Target's having physical stores subject to the ADA, and the web site being related to the stores.
The ADA only applies to "commercial speech", where the intent is to sell. In the US, the First Amendment preempts the ADA for non-commercial speech by non-government p
An auction site is probably commercial speech (Score:3, Interesting)
The ADA only applies to "commercial speech", where the intent is to sell. [...] Games aren't usually "commercial speech".
Do advertisements in video games count as "commercial speech"? What about Sony's "official auction site where gamers can sell their in-game items for real money" that the article mentions?
WOW from a Visually Impaired Person's point... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.wow.com/2009/07/06/visually-impaired-players-the-unseen-inhabitants-of-azeroth/ [wow.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know that there was this great invention called "glasses", some 725 years ago, do you? ^^
How much of this is customer service? (Score:3, Insightful)
Many large organizations today seem to use their customer-facing staff solely as a means for getting rid of people who phone up to complain, or to request things or make enquiries. This isn't necessarily the fault of the staff in question, or the intention of the organization. Yet somehow things get structured so that it becomes the function of the support staff. For instance, I suspect that under-staffing the help desk or measuring performance by calls "resolved" as opposed to customers satisfied tends to push things towards a "When customers call, make them go away, otherwise they're stopping us talking to our customers" mode of operation.
The other problem is that it's pretty easy in a large organization (or even a small, highly bureaucratic one) to get into situations where large swathes of problems are "somebody else's responsibility", or likely "nobody in particular". Much as I dislike the idea of a work environment where inappropriate work is dumped on people, or staff are lumped with resolving things they're not responsible for, at the end of the day the buck ought to stop *somewhere*, even if it's just a customer service supervisor writing back. If a customer has a real and legitimate question to which there is *an* answer but there's *nobody* in the organization whose job description allows or requires them to answer it, you're doing something wrong. It's not possible to satisfy all people all of the time but I think most organizations can do a heck of a lot better than they do!
In this instance, the allegation is that Sony ignored requests made of them. Did they ignore them outright, did they fob off the (potential?) customer, or did they make the effort to respond but the gamer didn't like the answer anyhow? Sony may have done everything as well as they possibly could in this case but they should nonetheless evaluate whether engaging more with the gamer in question could have saved them a court case.
Some of the claims in the case could seem a bit dubious but as the article points out, various other companies have at least allowed 3rd parties to develop plugins that assist disabled gamers. So it's not like anybody's saying Sony must develop (for instance) a braille interface to WoW on their own budget.
Lets make this very clear! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Americans With Disabilities Act was written so loosely that there are so many of these litigious bullshitteries going on nation wide. It is basically a form of extortion facilitated by poorly written 'laws'.
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
I hope sony lobbies to get reform.
I say all of this with the great respect for the disabled and the true intent of the ADA. It is the exploit of the act that bothers me so much.
In this case, Sony makes visual video games and a guy who can't see thinks Sony OWES him a game. That's like being allergic to peanut butter and suing Reeses for not making you a hazelnut cup. THEY DONT OWE YOU A HAZELNUT CUP!
Re:Lets make this very clear! (Score:4, Insightful)
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
This sort of thing sounds horrible when you first hear it, but it's important to remember, most of those business probably were violating the ADA. Maybe they didn't have a ramp going into their store, or whatever. If they had made their business more accessible to begin with, it wouldn't have been a problem.
I'm totally against frivolous lawsuits, but you can't say her lawsuits were frivolous just because there were a lot of them. You have to show that they were frivolous.
Parent
Opinion from a blind guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Visually impaired != Blind (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously guys, it's easy to go "Tut tut, blind people can't possibly play games, what an unreasonable fellow". But the article says *visually impaired*, which does not necessarily mean total blindness. There are phases in between where you can see the computer screen but it'd be nice if the game didn't have to make it really hard to follow what's happening. Are there really as many people here as the posts would indicate who can't see this distinction?
Also: are you the same crowd of people who bitch at Microsoft for releasing OSes that are too bloated to run on your hardware without an upgrade. You *can* at least upgrade your hardware!
Come on... be cool... (Score:4, Insightful)
Being disabled myself, I can sympathize with such frustrations... but guess what... even the disabled can be totally unreasonable!
Sure, it's one thing to expect handicapped accessible ramps and bathrooms at places of business which deal directly with the public, but it's something completely different to expect a business to cater to any and every conceivable disability when the person in question isn't even on their property or being dealt with on a personal basis.
Why should this person be suing Sony for problems extending beyond the scope of their hardware's intended use when the guy could just as easily find a 3rd party solution for such issues and get government assistance to acquire it? Are they somehow entitled to a first party solution simply because a third party solution might not be as pretty to use or look at? Is there a reason this person should expect every piece of software/hardware he encounters to have a built-in zoom function, when he could just as easily use something like a display magnifying glass like that featured in the film version of "1984"? And how would they prove that using such an external solution would "damage" them to the point that the only logical solution is to sue not the display hardware's manufacturer, but the manufacturer of other hardware using that display?
After all, is it Sony's fault that this person purchased a TV with pixels too small for them to view the images shown on it adequately?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next he can sue auto manufacturers for not making cars accessible to the blind.
That lawsuit is entirely possible and winnable under the current ADA. Reform is necessary NOW! Predatory lawyers and litigious garbage (yes, they can be disabled too) are ruining this country and the ADA facilitates it for being written too loosely!
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't disagree that ADA is written too loosely, but a lot of the abuse depends on the judge. The "reasonable accommodations" part of the act is important.
If there are modifications that can be made without undue financial strain, I don't see a problem with asking the company to modify the game.
The red herrings mentioned elsewhere, about making cars work for the blind and the like, would be examples of UNreasonable accommodations.
Parent
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Reasonable accommodations are in the eye of the beholder.
Parent
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
This one has 70 Hit Dice.
Parent
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the second part is what seems ridiculous to me. He claims that Sony's online auction site for selling/buying games isn't fit for the visually impaired. So not only is Sony not allowing him full entertainment of the games, they're actually costing him extra money. That's just stupid. Every computer I've seen within the last 5-6 years has come with some sort of zoom feature for the visually disabled. I know my computer (Alienware bought at the end of 2008) has an Ease of Access section in my start menu with a magnifier, narrator, on-screen keyboard, and voice recognition. They're probably not the best out there considering them came with it, but I'm sure it would allow him to use an auction site.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on the website. I'm no expert and you need an account to view the actual site but the lack of alt texts on the images and using images as titles, here [sony.com], does not bode well for screen readers.
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly a judge should be able to look at the WHY reasonable accommodations are required, and work accordingly. Let us just not forget there was a REASON why the ADA was passed, and it wasn't for asshats like this. When my late sister had to go to court over someone stealing her identity the local courthouse, which was built in the 20s, naturally didn't work with her wheelchair, but since there is the ADA they couldn't just tell her to "figure it out" (Which in the 70s they would have done).
So the judge simply thought about it for a few minutes, and had court on the steps during lunch break. It only took them a couple of minutes to get her testimony and get everything resolved in her favor. It didn't cost anyone anything but a little extra time and allowed my sister to have her day in court despite her handicap.
And THAT is why we have the ADA, not so some asshole can play golf or blind guys can play video games. It was so the handicapped couldn't be discriminated against when it came to the important stuff like access to government services. It really burns me up when some douche takes what was a perfectly reasonable request...make it so the handicapped can have access to basic services, and tries to turn it into his/her own personal lotto. Just another proof that scum sucking lawyers and greedy douches are running this country into the ground IMHO.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, if YOU were Sony, you think that YOU should do so.
But do you think that the law should tell Sony what they SHOULD do?
The point of what I'm talking about is the vague wording of the ADA and how it has led to tons of litigious shakedowns for cash. Because of the vague wording, people whos think that a company should be obliged to do something are enabled to legally FORCE these things (and get paid), despite the topic at hand having almost nothing to do with the true intent of the ADA which is to facilita
Re:I've got just the game got him... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
What's "dark"? Why would you need a lantern? Even puzzles aren't as accessible because they're "seen" from a different perspective.
Parent
Re:Go after MS paint (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. That would seem to be the next target if a lawsuit were to actually succeed.
The whole point of the Act in question was to assure that basic and essential services were available to the disabled, not that every single potential activity must be catered to. Shall we have laws forcing automakers to make cars that can be driven by the tongue for quadriplegics?
Maybe there's a market out there for video games for the blind, I dunno, but to demand a company do substantial modifications (and for a lot of games, they would be substantial, if possible at all) is ludicrous.
Parent
Re:Go after MS paint (Score:5, Insightful)
To demand the company make any modifications is ludicrous. If it's profitable then Sony will do it on its own, or not. Who cares? Blind people can't do a lot of things. Video games are one of them.
There's a big difference between meeting standards for government websites and forcing developers to make a different game from what they envisioned.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, a lot of theatres do now. Read about the Rear Window Captioning System [wikipedia.org]. You may have watched a movie with it without even realizing.