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

171–180 of 620 posts

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

#171

Post by pseudalopex »

differentView wrote: post #155
thomasedwards wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously you should just be allowed to use the same services as everyone else. The web is accessible by design, so all sites that are not accessible are broken. The people that made them broke them. But, just for the sake of your curiosity, American Airlines charge $35 per ticket[1] when you call them to book. [1] https://www.aa.com/i18n/customer-service/support/optional-se...

There's no way they don't wave that fee for blind customers.

Domino's wouldn't give Robles the online price according to other articles.

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

#172

Post by JJMcJ »

I live to use keyboard shortcuts, mostly TAB. It's amazing how many websites don't even have that working correctly.

Or a page has exactly one text entry box and it doesn't have focus when page first renders.

That's just sloppy.

And for those with vision problem a major problem.

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

#173

Post by jakelazaroff »

edoo wrote: post #136
lftl wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I take it you're opposed to the ADA in general?

Absolutely except for federal buildings. The powers not expressly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states. At worse it should be a states rights issue with each state deciding their own way.

> The powers not expressly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states.

I don't understand why you're making a legal argument now when the root of your opinion is a moral one ("Being forced to work at gunpoint is known as slavery"). It sounds like the states' rights argument is just a convenient legal pretext for what you really want, which is the freedom to discriminate against disabled people.

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

#174

Post by pseudalopex »

arvinsim wrote: post #125
aaomidi wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an issue, its a feature. You live in a society so you plan around to serve that society. If you're not serving a large portion of your population then you're going to be forced to. This is no different than outlawing racial discrimination.

Better tell that to the business owners and managers, not the developers.

The Supreme Court just did.

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

#175

Post by jakelazaroff »

tylerl wrote: post #107
notyourwork wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like they missed a demographic with their strategy. It shouldn’t be hard to add accessibility support to their site.

I think that misses the point. There's a mile of difference between adding sufficient accessibility to serve a demographic vs adding new legal requirements. (Especially new requirements for which customers are financially incentivised to file suits, and for it's trivially simple to code up automated scanning to find businesses you can target.)

If fear of lawsuits means businesses end up making their websites accessible to disabled people, then… mission accomplished?

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

#176

Post by yoloClin »

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'm sure a bunch of people have inundated you with other questions, but what other pain points do you have? How are Docx and PDF to deal with?

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

#178

Post by pseudalopex »

zaroth wrote: post #41
0xEFF wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure the law doesn't say anything in particular about websites. I don't usually find myself scratching my head at SCOTUS. Full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services is the pizza, not the website. The website is just one means of obtaining said pizza.

Robles claims Domino's wouldn't sell the same goods for the same price over the phone.

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

#179

Post by sgustard »

dexwiz wrote: post #48

I see a lot of negativity in the comments. I imagine much of that is gut reactions of web developers hearing they need to do more work. As a web developer that has had to pass an accessibility review from a person who is actually blind each release for the last two years, I can tell you it’s not that hard. Make sure you have a sensible tab order and labels on forms and you are 80% there. The hard issues are creating…

But the Domino's site didn't have "labels on forms," it was a whole goofy animated game where you'd drag ingredients on a pizza to order. There's no way to make that accessible without building a whole separate web app. You can argue that goofy animated games are a dumb way to run a pizza website, and I can agree with you, but we all know the web is full of that kind of thing which is now waiting to be a lawsuit magnet.

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

#180

Post by [deleted] »

pseudalopex wrote: post #178
zaroth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure the law doesn't say anything in particular about websites. I don't usually find myself scratching my head at SCOTUS. Full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services is the pizza, not the website. The website is just one means of obtaining said pizza.

Robles claims Domino's wouldn't sell the same goods for the same price over the phone.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN