Sounds like a great start-up opportunity. Turnkey and ongoing accessibility compliance.
I don't think that's a new market actually. But I guess startups can be anything now.
Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
11–20 of 620 posts
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#12Does the ADA really apply and enforced at all publicly available businesses? Does every Chinese restaurant in Chinatown have a Braille menu? If we really start enforcing this, only larger businesses will survive.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#13I wonder why having having a voice ordering system by phone wouldn't be a valid defense for Dominos. Should the ADA apply to every channel of sales if there are supported alternatives by the same company.
The pace of their VRU reading out toppings, coupons, crusts, sizes, etc would likely be maddening. As would other things, like reliably getting customer info like payment, address, etc. An accessible website would allow for screen readers customized to the individual user pace and preferred voicing, Braille, enlarged text, etc.
Legally, SCOTUS seems to be taking a specific position on what “full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services ... of any place of public accommodations.” means.
Note that US airlines have had to provide accessible websites since December 12, 2016, under the Air Carrier Access Act. So there's some existing work other industries can follow.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#14If you're blind, can't you just call up a Dominos to order your pizza? "Talk to a human and order your pizza" sounds like a friendlier approach than the automated screen reader or whatever they'll come up with to resolve this litigation.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#15This seems like overreach. Clearly the law doesn’t cover websites. Why can’t congress just pass a law to make the ADA apply to websites? It’s not SCOTUS’s job to create law.
The law has covered websites for decades. It used to be not that much of a problem because screen readers worked well enough with plain html.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#16I wonder why having having a voice ordering system by phone wouldn't be a valid defense for Dominos. Should the ADA apply to every channel of sales if there are supported alternatives by the same company.
and probably a can of worms if VR becomes a "normal" platform for this type of thing
Wouldn't VR be a lot better for a lot of these things? A huge amount of VR innovation is focused on non-sight feedback mechanisms. Implementing braille via VR interfaces would be actually be a lot easier since you're always using your hands to interact.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#17This seems like overreach. Clearly the law doesn’t cover websites. Why can’t congress just pass a law to make the ADA apply to websites? It’s not SCOTUS’s job to create law.
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#18I'm in favor of requiring that all deals and coupons be available via all methods of ordering, with things such as app-required deals only being legal if the app is accessible to the blind. Other than that, I fail to see how having phone ordering doesn't completely cover the accessibility requirement. It's very easy to get silly with these requirements. Should comedians be required to provide transcripts for deaf people? Should paintings come with exhaustive descriptions attached to their frames?
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#19Sounds like a great start-up opportunity. Turnkey and ongoing accessibility compliance.
I really hope not. I don’t think “X compliance” is a good idea for a startup, because of trust and liability.
Whomever does the compliant would either need a ton of liability insurance, or would need contract language that actually gets them out of responsibility (similar to the language in many travel insurance and point-of-dale service plans). The former would be expensive, so you’d probably end up with the latter.
Web accessibility compliance does require a human to look at (and interact with) a site, and it requires people who either have training, or experience. That costs more. I really hope we don’t end up with “Uber for accessibility compliance”, with testers who aren’t paid enough, and who don’t get enough time to test a site.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#20Sounds like a great start-up opportunity. Turnkey and ongoing accessibility compliance.
I don't think that's a new market actually. But I guess startups can be anything now.
A start-up is nothing more than a new business. Has no relationship with market segment or particular technology or whether that tech is new or old.