Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 620 posts

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#161

Post by mltony »

ncallaway wrote: post #110
mltony wrote: post #74

Blind programmer here. Just a glimpse of my life. Blind people have to live in an environment where X% of web sites and programs are not accessible, where X varies somewhere from 20% (for web sites) to 50% (for desktop applications). That's just my approximation of the state of accessibility these days. Now imagine that you live in the world where you don't know which printer or wi-fi router to buy, since maybe half…

I'd like to make sure I'm testing more of the website that I work on to make sure they're as accessible as possible. I want to do more than just run sites through validators. Is JAWS still a good accessibility program to test with? Are there other major accessibility programs I should be testing with?

The big three are Jaws and NVDA for Windows and VoiceOver for Mac. You probably don't need to test with all three every time since they are similar in terms of what kind of content they can access on the pages. But each of them has its own quirks, there are web-pages that only one of them can read.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#162

Post by kls »

mltony wrote: post #153
kls wrote: post #149

So somehow along my career I fell into accessibility dev for a while. Funny enough it was one of the most lucrative dev jobs I did and there was always plenty of work. It is easily outsourced to a remote developer because all you really need is a browser and a screen reader. In my opinion there really is no reason for even mom and pop sites to not provide even a base level of accessibility, it really is just setting…

I work in a big IT company and often times internal tools are not very accessible. Sometimes when I talk to their respective maintainers, they are willing to help me, but they don't know what is accessibility and what is screenreader. Is there a good document on how to make web sites accessible that I can show them?

The W3C preliminary check is a great document to get you to at least usable:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/preliminary/

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#163

Post by yoloClin »

throwaway_bad wrote: post #117
clamprecht wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some kind of "Yelp for websites for blind people"? In other words, a web site for blind people that lets you know whether a given site works with your screen reader? It seems like it could be a big time saver.

It there is one, I hope they made it styled with black on black text and/or with a braille font!

My guess is that your comment is satire, but you should be aware that 'accessible' doesn't just mean 'accessible to blind people' - among other issues, some people have reduced motor function, others can't see contrast as well as the typical human eye.

WCAG is, from what I can tell, a reasonably good starting point and even attempting to do _some_ things and being generally aware is better than not doing anything at all. Give the guidelines a read, https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#164

Post by toomuchtodo »

mltony wrote: post #98
frittig wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your insight. One thing that I've wondered for a while is, what do you do about captchas? The whole point of them is to prevent access to the webpage unless a person sees the graphic. Can you sue Google under ada?

Google's recaptcha is actually somehow really good - you just click on the checkbox and somehow it magically understands that you're a human, even when using a screenreader. Other websites have audio captcha. In the worst case, you can install a captcha-solving browser extension - they are typically 90% accurate.

Newer recaptcha uses your google account as a heuristic if you’re logged in.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#165

Post by couchand »

gnicholas wrote: post #154
couchand wrote: post #77

Despite the somewhat misleading headline, the Supreme Court didn't really say anything new here. They declined to hear Domino's appeal of the Ninth Circuit's (unanimous and clearly correctly decided) reversal of the District Court's absurd dismissal. Domino's tried to claim that their due process rights were being violated since there is no federally-mandated standard for accessibility. But the ADA is clear: business…

> Despite the somewhat misleading headline, the Supreme Court didn't really say anything new here. A unanimous denial of certiorari (declining to hear the case) sends a pretty strong message to lawyers and their clients. It only takes 4 votes (1 less than majority) to hear a case, so the fact that there were zero justices interested is a clear message. While it is technically possible that there could in the future b…

That's awesome to hear, thanks for clarifying.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#166

Post by yoloClin »

rgoldste wrote: post #119
mltony wrote: post #74

Blind programmer here. Just a glimpse of my life. Blind people have to live in an environment where X% of web sites and programs are not accessible, where X varies somewhere from 20% (for web sites) to 50% (for desktop applications). That's just my approximation of the state of accessibility these days. Now imagine that you live in the world where you don't know which printer or wi-fi router to buy, since maybe half…

Curious, not trying to be a jerk. For something like ordering pizza (or even plane tickets), how much worse is calling to make the order as opposed to ordering online?

There's also no guarantee the service desk will be open or responsive when you want it.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#167

Post by gnicholas »

jcranmer wrote: post #47

Some clarity on the matter: The Supreme Court didn't say anything. All they did was decline to hear the appeal. From skimming the petition and responses, it looks like the situation is that the 9th Circuit is allowing the case to go ahead to determine whether or not Domino's website is violating accessibility requirements, which means that there's not a lot of facts and administrative record for SCOTUS to attempt to…

This is actually a big deal because what was ruled on was the legal matter of whether a business could be sued based on their website.

The facts of what constitutes a sufficiently-accessible website necessarily have not been discussed, because Dominos was trying to boot the case before any factual determinations were made.

Their argument was that, as a matter of law, they could not be sued under the ADA based on their website. This argument prevailed at the District Court, lost at the Ninth Circuit, and was unanimously declined to be heard at SCOTUS.

That sends a loud and clear message, and this will essentially become the law of the land for at least the next few decades.

Note: I have not deeply read all the opinions, but I am a lawyer who is familiar with appellate procedure and the ADA.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#168

Post by sterlind »

kls wrote: post #152
Firerouge wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just install a screen reader and close your eyes.

Yep when I was doing accessibility dev, that was exactly how I tested. It's pretty effective and it also gives you a feel for how crappy the tools are for the blind.

what is the learning curve like for screen readers? ...and what form does documentation come in? I'd like to learn but not sure where to get started.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#169

Post by mltony »

clamprecht wrote: post #99
mltony wrote: post #74

Blind programmer here. Just a glimpse of my life. Blind people have to live in an environment where X% of web sites and programs are not accessible, where X varies somewhere from 20% (for web sites) to 50% (for desktop applications). That's just my approximation of the state of accessibility these days. Now imagine that you live in the world where you don't know which printer or wi-fi router to buy, since maybe half…

Is there some kind of "Yelp for websites for blind people"? In other words, a web site for blind people that lets you know whether a given site works with your screen reader? It seems like it could be a big time saver.

None that I'm aware of. The problem is checking whether a web site is accessible is a manual operation and therefore time-consuming. And it often happens that companies break accessibility, and then they fix it, and then they break it again...

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#170

Post by shakna »

rgoldste wrote: post #119
mltony wrote: post #74

Blind programmer here. Just a glimpse of my life. Blind people have to live in an environment where X% of web sites and programs are not accessible, where X varies somewhere from 20% (for web sites) to 50% (for desktop applications). That's just my approximation of the state of accessibility these days. Now imagine that you live in the world where you don't know which printer or wi-fi router to buy, since maybe half…

Curious, not trying to be a jerk. For something like ordering pizza (or even plane tickets), how much worse is calling to make the order as opposed to ordering online?

From another angle here, I occasionally have problems that make me use a screenreader.

When the nerves that make my eyes work stop behaving correctly, it's also normal for the nerves in my throat to flip out so that speaking feels like breathing razor blades.

Making a call isn't an option, but using a web browser still is, if they haven't gone out of their way to break all the ways a web browser is supposed to behave.

Post reply on HN