TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I’m not 100% certain, but I believe Disney conveniently lists the “rotating schedule” to encourage guests to use that schedule but legally would have to provide them if requested in advance.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024
- Thread starter AEfx
- Start date
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think they are useful because they establish that the DOJ accessibility guidelines of 'reasonable' also accepts the reality that a disabled person may actually be w/o accommodation due to capacity/availability. It's an important reference.
But as you say - what isn't known is what allocation would be considered 'reasonable'? We can't use the percentages of parking spots, or percentages of handicap accessible seating and directly apply them here.. but no one is trying to do that.. (no one has really gotten into the theory-crafting of how much they would have to have available).
There is also the difference between limiting something because it required some physical build out (and cost) vs limiting something that is just virtual or administrative... but Disney does have history of successfully arguing that attraction access is not without burden to the business due to impact to others.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No - but they allow businesses to require a person assert they do meet the requirements before giving them the access. It's basically making the person promise they need it.. no teeth.
Chi84
Premium Member
Legally, the ADA as implemented by the DOJ regulations provides that disability accommodations such as accessible hotel rooms and seating shall be restricted to disabled persons (including those with disabilities that may not be visible), but does not allow businesses to ask about the nature and extent of the disability.
This works as long as the accessible accommodation does not have any particular value to the non disabled.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think these statements have a few loaded elements...
The objective was never to ensure EVERY disabled person was accomodated, it was to make sure the disabled were not being discriminated against through structure and exclusion. With the design standards they were aiming to make spaces accessible BY DEFAULT -- not that they were trying to ensure 'no one left behind'.
The bolded part is where I think you stray... That statement isn't true or without limit. They have a responsibility to make their spaces accessible - to add in scope creep like 'everyone' and 'at the expense of their operations' is where you are changing the claims and you go from agreement to disagreement.
Because accessibility has never been a ranked system. The objective of the ADA was to ensure the disabled were not being ostracized and allow them to participate in normal life as best they could (within reason).
The objective was never to ensure EVERY disabled person was accomodated, it was to make sure the disabled were not being discriminated against through structure and exclusion. With the design standards they were aiming to make spaces accessible BY DEFAULT -- not that they were trying to ensure 'no one left behind'.
The bolded part is where I think you stray... That statement isn't true or without limit. They have a responsibility to make their spaces accessible - to add in scope creep like 'everyone' and 'at the expense of their operations' is where you are changing the claims and you go from agreement to disagreement.
ConfettiCupcake
Well-Known Member
I don’t pretend to know what the legalities are or whether or not they’d be allowed to do what’s proposed.
I do know that with the gist of the conversations that have gone on here for 400+ pages, it’s really surprising to see how okay some people would be with Disney changing a system that currently doesn’t outright limit the number of accommodations given out to a hypothetical system that would allow some people to have the ‘better’ accommodation (even if it’s more than what they need) while shutting other guests out entirely because that ‘better’ accommodation is the only one that works for them but they booked later.
As far as I know - I'm not aware of any on-demand sign language at WDW.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I believe that legally, it must be provided if requested. The posted schedule is when sign language is already scheduled to be provided l.
Now that doesn’t mean it has to be provided “on demand” - you may have to schedule in advance, but I think it must be required when requested. For live entertainment of course.
Chi84
Premium Member
This is why it's not a good comparison. It would be like the DOJ saying Disney only has to give out a specific number of accessibility passes, require people to assert they need it, and then not worry about accommodating anyone else. No liability to the business for not making sure the passes only go to the disabled.
People are not likely to misjudge their need for an accessible hotel room or theater seating, nor are such accommodations particularly useful or valuable to the non disabled. Given the lack of widespread demand, these provisions are generally not a matter of concern.
But if the accommodation itself is being sold as a valuable product to non disabled and disabled alike, it has value over and above its use as a disability accommodation. Also, people are far more likely to misjudge their "need" for something that most non disabled people find extremely difficult to do (stand in long lines in the Florida heat and humidity).
Per Disneyland's site, they "may" provide sign language interpreters for a "limited number of offerings" with at least 14 days advance notice.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think there is a nuance here you're glossing over.
What people were discussing for so long was WHO should be covered... not necessarily about their usage every time. So when you say 'everyone' -- think about the distinction between who is IN the audience -- and ensuring every person in that audience is satisfied every time.
Both populations included can be generalized as 'everyone' - but it's actually addressing different topics.
There really wasn't much discussion about capacity for disabled people before... just discussion about how usage was impacting the general population as a whole.
It's a very difficult discussion to say how much someone can use something.. vs discussing who gets to use it.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone is suddenly arguing for that necessarily. Someone posed the question.
There are examples where access is limited. A movie theater doesn't have unlimited wheelchair spots. You may have to book ahead and make your plans based on what times those seats haven't been sold.
So, given that reality, could Disney implement such policies from both a legal and moral perspective? It's certainly a potentially problematic policy with the caveat that it could help those with the most severe disabilities.
Think of a slow loading low capacity attraction. We know that LL lines can get quite long. DAS might be pointless for some people if it's a 30 minute wait for Peter Pan regardless. Do limits help alleviate that possibility and is more advance planning the trade off for a better experience?
flynnibus
Premium Member
And this is why every monitor has closed captions on all the time
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Do they have to be on all the time? Or just capable of being turned on when requested?And this is why every monitor has closed captions on all the time
flynnibus
Premium Member
What you highlight is why the policy is not that effective - not that it's not a good/relevant comparison.
Don't agree - Tickets at venues for high demand events are very much something that have strong demand and enough 'to gain' for people to try to exploit the tickets set aside for the handicap accessible seating. I mean, it's exactly why it got added to the DOJ guidelines years later... because it was a problematic area
The tickets to taylor swift are a valuable product
The tickets on the main level vs the nose bleeds are a valuable product. The handicap parking spots at a baseball stadium are way more attractive than the other spots, etc.I know what you are trying to say with regard to the accommodation being more 'lucrative' in this situation of line skipping at Disney/theme parks.. but it's not really unique. It was just so easily and commonly exploited because of the lack of consequences or guardrails.
The monitors in the pre-shows? I've never seen them not on, and I've never seen them not have closed-captioning.
flynnibus
Premium Member
It's why businesses leave it on.. vs just doing on-demand.. even if it has a negative consequence. It's just the easy path.. smarter newer products build it into the presentation so it's not as distracting. Make your content accessible to start with.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
right, so it’s not required to always be on Correct?
Or is it required when there are safety elements in the video? For example tower of terror pre-show has no safety elements, it’s just story and entertainment, but Dinosaur does have safety elements built into the pre-show.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Required by the ADA? No
But I think you are splitting hairs here... there is 'required' and then there is 'practical'. And that's BEFORE you get into any other reasoning like wanting better defenses against liability, etc. Why things are posted notices and not just verbalized, etc.
I don't really know where you are going with this. They leave accessibility CC on all the time because it's the easiest way to address the need and provides a consistent experience.
Sign language, especially for live performance, is something far more involved and able to be argued reasonable to limit.
But to give a comparison... at my office they just started doing sign interpretors on all our executing briefings all the time... why now? Maybe there was a new deaf hire... or maybe someone complained... all I know is it's done all the time now and not based on attendance.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I’m not going anywhere - I asked a question. You made a statement and I asked you to clarify that statement.
It is not legally allowed to have a limit, no. At least that’s my understanding of the law.