Websites and discrimination

[Chucaro]

If this woman win her case the implications on other site will be serious indeed.
IMO this is going to far, what do you think?
I would shop in another site.

Blind woman launches claim of unlawful discrimination against Coles over website (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/blind-woman-launches-court-action-against-coles-over-its-website/5869874)

[Eevo]

is anyone forcing her to shop with coles?

[JDNSW]

There is quite strict legislation requiring businesses dealing with the public to make their physical premises accessible to the disabled, although the feasibility of modifying access is taken into account, as is the size of the business.

This would seem to be a test case as to what extent the legislation applies to online activities. Regardless of the outcome, it is unlikely to be good advertising for Coles!

I rather doubt that the idea in Eevo's comment will have any impact on the court.

John

[Eevo]

I rather doubt that the idea in Eevo's comment will have any impact on the court.



it might.
the idea being legally, coles don't have to accommodate her as current law only applies to physical location, not websites.
why does the lady feel it is the sole responsibility of coles to cater for her needs?
the lady also has free choice to go online shopping with a competitor.
if there is no competitor that will deliver to her, thats not coles fault.
discrimination also implies coles went out of their way to make it more difficult for her.
although the article contains little detail and seems more interested in grabbing headlines, it sounds like she is using the legal system to get her own way.

[digger]

Although I can see the problem she is suing over,
I am afraid I put a little less weight on it as she is a regular
user of legal or media channels to promote her cause/s.

It will be interesting if this does proceed and if it does how would it be worded? and enforced..(who decides what is enough etc?)

[incisor]

Although I can see the problem she is suing over,
I am afraid I put a little less weight on it as she is a regular
user of legal or media channels to promote her cause/s.


ummmmm

having a relative who is extremely handicapped and having seen what she has had to overcome over the years

sometimes this sort of behavior is the only way you can get things fixed so you get anything like the same sort of service

not sure i agree 100% with this one tho i have to say...

[Greatsouthernland]

Why pick coles and not Woolworths?

Did she mention coles or were they cited by the media and we don't have full details of her claim...it may mention both, but as usual key bits of info get missed in media reports and there is often a parallel slant/agenda by the reporting media....i.e. advertising revenue/past dealings/reporter bias..

Edit - having now read the article ( not just the headline -
Blind woman's bid to bring down Coles - used on yahoo...)

It seems the changes to the service (she had relied on) then caused it to become unreliable or unusable, at least in terms of time efficiency.

Seems legitimate, I wonder if Woolies does it better,,worth switching then..? I see woolies are advertising flat out their online shopping with baits like 10% off first purchase and free home delivery for a month. Seems like they think it's good marketing to capitulate on the competitor's negative press...or kicking a fellow competitor when they're down...either or I suppose...

[Bytemrk]

This will be interesting to watch.

I am all for big businesses doing all that is reasonable to ensure accessibility for those with various disabilities.

I guess the ultimate question is whether this is reasonable or not. Certainly not enough information in that article to make a clear decision IMHO.

[JDNSW]

Why pick coles and not Woolworths?

Did she mention coles or were they cited by the media and we don't have full details of her claim...it may mention both, but as usual key bits of info get missed in media reports and there is often a parallel slant/agenda by the reporting media....i.e. advertising revenue/past dealings/reporter bias..

As reported, the case is based on Coles website being unnecessarily inaccessible to a handicapped (blind) user. It is quite possible that Woolworths website is much better in that respect, although in any such legal action a plaintiff would normally only sue one business first and then ask their competitors nicely to fix their similar problems - which, if the first case was won, would probably not even require a solicitor's letter!

The legal action is about the specific website, and it has been mentioned that Coles did improve the problems but then an update took them back to just as bad as at the start.

John

[Greatsouthernland]

As reported, the case is based on Coles website being unnecessarily inaccessible to a handicapped (blind) user. It is quite possible that Woolworths website is much better in that respect, although in any such legal action a plaintiff would normally only sue one business first and then ask their competitors nicely to fix their similar problems - which, if the first case was won, would probably not even require a solicitor's letter!

The legal action is about the specific website, and it has been mentioned that Coles did improve the problems but then an update took them back to just as bad as at the start.

John

Hi John, yes agreed, thanks for the reply. I'd also managed to read it since my first post, so I updated that too. we'll see what else comes out. I find it amusing that woolies seemingly has upped the ads for its service :eek: or I notice them more since reading this article :eek: ?

[clubagreenie]

My question is, based on the article in question. Has she actually approached Coles and asked them about it? She seems very well informed about the history of the website. Shopping since 2010, when there was an upgrade to make it accessible. Then a 2013 upgrade caused issues. So for 2 years she's been persisting with a website where "some online orders had taken her days to complete.

Anyone should realise that it's reasonable that an upgrade, whatever the intention, can have negative unplanned effects it's functionality. And that the best approach to rectifying it would be to approach the company in question. After all, while the portion of the market in question is undoubtedly a very small part of Coles online sales it is still a market that could be cornered and marketed to successfully and even monopolised.

At the end of the day. They can't fix it if they don't know it's broken.

[gossamer]

Is it discrimination or technologically challenged if a person cannot use a website properly??
I know i and esp my parents struggle with certain websites.
For the record i just signed up for Coles online and found it quite easy to use, some delivery times were not avail but to me thats to be expected. Just discovered they do Alcohol deliveries :)

[vnx205]

My question is, based on the article in question. Has she actually approached Coles and asked them about it?

The article says:
"Ms Mesnage is taking legal action as the absolute last resort here. Gisele's been talking to Coles about accessibility of their website since 2008," Ms Cohen said.

I think JDNSW is probably right.

This has all the earmarks of a test case.

It is a bit like the bloke with the "Destroy My Jeep" campaign. It wasn't just about Jeeps. It was about Australia's "Lemon Laws".

This case isn't about Coles. It is about whether the sort of legislation requiring physical access to establishments should also apply to online access.

[AndyG]

Given certain organisations, for example, ATO and AMP SMSF are increasing going on line and demand you contact them via the Internet, it would seem reasonable that there be reasonable access provided to all. Even if its an alternate web site, say black on white for clarity.

I cant even read those magazines where they print over back ground photos :mad:

[JDNSW]

Is it discrimination or technologically challenged if a person cannot use a website properly??
I know i and esp my parents struggle with certain websites.
For the record i just signed up for Coles online and found it quite easy to use, some delivery times were not avail but to me thats to be expected. Just discovered they do Alcohol deliveries :)

Yes - but I presume you can see. The plaintiff in this case is blind from birth. I would guess the problems relate to the website relying on the use of graphics that a text to audio translator cannot decipher rather than displaying text as text.

John

[gossamer]

It states she is legally blind, i take that as she has very limited vision??
Either way im not sure its discrimination

[JDNSW]

It states she is legally blind, i take that as she has very limited vision??
Either way im not sure its discrimination

One of the articles I saw stated she is blind from birth and using a text to audio translator.

John

[London Boy]

it might.
the idea being legally, coles don't have to accommodate her as current law only applies to physical location, not websites.
Um, no. The current law relates to services; how they are provided is irrelevant. What does make a difference is whether it is reasonable for the provider to make their services available to a person or class of people with a particular disability. In Coles' case, it would seem to be a no brainer.

[London Boy]

Good grief. I look at these comments, and I look at what was written on the ABC web site, and it is a struggle to have anything other than contempt for some - too many - of the people commenting.

I say this, not just on the basis of their fundamentally flawed understanding of what the law is (discrimination in the provision of services is, with very few exceptions, unlawful), but the callous disregard that so many people have for the needs of individuals with disabilities.

This is supposed to be Australia, the lucky country. Civilised, wealthy, land of opportunity. So why are there so many selfish, ill-informed and ill-educated grubs living here?

[Greatsouthernland]

Good grief. I look at these comments, and I look at what was written on the ABC web site, and it is a struggle to have anything other than contempt for some - too many - of the people commenting.

I say this, not just on the basis of their fundamentally flawed understanding of what the law is (discrimination in the provision of services is, with very few exceptions, unlawful), but the callous disregard that so many people have for the needs of individuals with disabilities.

This is supposed to be Australia, the lucky country. Civilised, wealthy, land of opportunity. So why are there so many selfish, ill-informed and ill-educated grubs living here?

:wasntme:

:( fair crack old boy :eek:

[Eevo]

Um, no. The current law relates to services; how they are provided is irrelevant. What does make a difference is whether it is reasonable for the provider to make their services available to a person or class of people with a particular disability. In Coles' case, it would seem to be a no brainer.

coles are not refusing to provide a service.

[Eevo]

This is supposed to be Australia, the lucky country. Civilised, wealthy, land of opportunity.



time to wake up and return to reality.

[clubagreenie]

It is about whether the sort of legislation requiring physical access to establishments should also apply to online access.

Which raises the question, since businesses are required to ensure they comply with so many pieces of legislation regarding physical access for the disabled, is this just an attempt to introduce legislation for "non physical access" so it becomes harder for small businesses to comply and so shut down small online retailers and access to overseas vendors who do not comply with local laws.


What does make a difference is whether it is reasonable for the provider to make their services available to a person or class of people with a particular disability.

Further to this, as I said apparently the access was fine until there was an upgrade to the website. Which may have occurred because of a change to programming/coding standards (how many things stopped working when flash was dumped for HTML5) and it may not be possible to replicate the function/experience to be exactly what she had previously. Maybe it's a similar problem at a hardware level between her T2S device. I don't know because the claim is fairly non specific.

I'm not saying she shouldn't have the option of shopping wherever she likes. But most people vote with their feet as much as anything. Maybe an initial campaign of awareness in her own community and that of the disabled with a boycott would have gotten a more immediate response.

I guess us grubs are just trying to make a go of it in a land that's barely civilised, laws differ for the wealthy and opportunity is packing up and doing a runner along with our skills, resources and any intellectual innovation.

[incisor]

this was a working service that they have altered.

this is a service that no longer performs as before.

a service she previously was able to take advantage of.

obviously the upgrade didn't have decent scope.

[London Boy]

Which raises the question, since businesses are required to ensure they comply with so many pieces of legislation regarding physical access for the disabled, is this just an attempt to introduce legislation for "non physical access" so it becomes harder for small businesses to comply and so shut down small online retailers and access to overseas vendors who do not comply with local laws.
Just two pieces of legislation, the Commonwealth DDA and the State equivalent (depending on which State you trade in).
And neither is specific to physical access, but to provision of services. In law, it doesn't matter how those services are provided or accessed, they must be available on reasonably equal terms to any consumer.

There are some differences, so one Act says a provider can avoid an obligation if it would cause unjustifiable hardship to that provider (this matters for a small business, say, when a big investment to enable access by a disabled person might be enough to bankrupt the business); another Act simply takes about making adjustments that are 'reasonable' in the circumstances. That is a slightly lower bar, but it is the disabled consumer chooses the jurisdiction and, hence, the law that applies, not the business providing services.

Coles is a huge business with loads of cash; making a web site accessible would clearly not cause unjustifiable hardship.

[Chucaro]

I am not concerned about Coles but the possible implications to small business if this case goes against Coles.
What it is involved in making a site accessible for any kind of disability?
What would be the costs?

[London Boy]

I am not concerned about Coles but the possible implications to small business if this case goes against Coles.
What it is involved in making a site accessible for any kind of disability?
What would be the costs?
Like I said, if it is reasonable for a small business to provide the service equally to all potential customers, then a court would order it. If it is not reasonable, because the costs are more than a small business could reasonably afford, a court would not order it.

I should say that the bar is set quite high; in many cases it would be better for a small business not to offer an online service than to have to pay to accommodate people with disabilities. How long a small business could exist without an online presence I don't know.

That is one benefit of eBay or Amazon of course - the web presence is someone else's problem.