Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

271–280 of 620 posts

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

#271
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…

[deleted]

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

#272
post #258
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…

This feels very much like a "tyranny of the minority" type situation though, where you have to bend backwards to aid a small subset of the population at the cost of a larger chunk of the same. There's probably a balance somewhere to be found. Not everything should have to be ported across.

In 2010 Google determined that there were more people using the internet with accessibility features than Canadians. I can't find any new data, but I find it hard to assume that has gone down since. On top of that, making your website friendly to navigate with a keyboard doesn't just help people using accessibility features, lots of people use the keyboard to quickly navigate.

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

#273

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…

> It's really not hard to make your websites accessible at a basic level. Follow the standards.

Do you follow the standards? If you show me a web site that you've developed I'll show you a site with multiple violations of WCAG 2.0. Hell, JAWS' own site is littered with WCAG violations! Yes, "accessibility at the basic level" is easy but WCAG 2.0 is not "accessibility at the basic level". It's a huge set of rules that are often unclear and ambiguous. And that's fine because WCAG 2.0 is just something that you should aspire to. But if you start defining accessibility by whether a site conforms to WCAG 2.0 or not, then I can guarantee you that every single popular site is non-accessible.

We got sued and believe me it has nothing to do with blind people. Our site is of zero interest to them. Companies are sued by scumbag lawyers, who have made a nice little racket out of this thing. It's really unfortunate that the HN crowd is siding with them, as if they are championing the rights of disabled people. It's all about money.

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

#274
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…

Sounds like a pain in the ass.

In the case of websites... two years ago I started adopting a11y into my front-end code. But while plugins like eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y make the job easier, it honestly was also a huge pain in the ass familiarizing myself with the grotesque state of affairs in web accessibility standards.

However, one of the biggest gains might have been learning to properly leverage every HTML tag to its fullest. Modern day SPAs have all gone back to using wild div forests with no context or metadata available for readers. This also took much less effort than learning the rest of standards compliance. So start there!

After crossing that river, I think that accessibility is complex enough to warrant its own dedicated developer for almost any project if standards are to be achieved.

Still... until our bosses catch up, we do what we can. Here are some great resources for developers who wish to learn more about how to design for accessibility: https://a11yproject.com/resources/#further-reading

P.S. Is it a reasonable heuristic to assume a reader with no visual formatting in their comments might have a good chance of being blind?

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

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tab indexes in correct order, as well as making sure items have alt and title tags so that the readers can pick them up and actively describe the page. Not every disabled person is blind. It's not enough to set some tab indexes, add alt tags and call it a day. It's not a pr…

Yet in an increasingly online world, refusing to make one's site accessible is tantamount to refusing to install a ramp in place of stairs.

A counter to that analogy is that where/when ramp access is needed and how one should be built in order for it to be usable is defined by building codes and the concept is well understood. Without what clear definition or a method to get a website's accessibility "certified" makes it seem like allowing litigation is not going to be produce meaningful results and could be easily abused.

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

#276
As someone now living in Japan, I think I can understand how frustrating the user experience is for disabled people. While not disabled, I often need to use Google translate or lookup for Kanjis/Words in a dictionary. There are a crazy amount of websites (and mobile applications) where text selection is disabled or where text is written inside images, which often completely prevents me from using the website...

I'm not even counting the number of websites breaking the system scroll speed of forcing a custom mouse cursor. I may be too sensitive here, but it is very annoying so I now just close the tab whenever it happens.

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

#277
post #62

Then the Supreme Court is wrong (which isn't impossible, by the way). If I draw on my street with chalk, should I also be compelled to play a cassette on repeat outside my driveway describing what the picture is? This is absurd.

This would not apply to your street art. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." "a failure to take such s…

I would say that yes -- sometimes. Often making a piece of software accessible to the blind for a small time developer or a small business owner is an undue burden.

If I was forced to modify two of the apps I put up on the apple store to accommodate the blind I would just take them down because I could not justify the investment since it would require retooling the entire product and even re-imagining how it functions internally.

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

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think we know it was unanimous. The orders list doesn't say anything to that effect, and the justices rarely publicly dissent from denials of cert, so their silence doesn't mean anything. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m6...

You're right that public dissents from cert. denial are not as common as dissents from SCOTUS opinions. However, given the questions presented, the current composition of the Court, and the fact that only 4 justices are needed to grant cert., it still seems unlikely that the Court would rule in favor of a different defendant in a different case.

That is, this case presented a novel issue, and it was at a stage where the questions were legal in nature (not factual). That's the perfect opportunity for SCOTUS to take the case if they planned to interpret the ADA as not applying to business' websites. They could hypothetically weigh in on the case after Dominos has a full trial with all the facts, but if they planned to say that as a matter of law the ADA does not apply to Dominoes' website, why would they wait to do so?

And since both "sides" (liberal and conservative) of the Court have at least 4 justices right now, either could have independently granted cert. This is especially true for the conservative wing, which is typically viewed (or typically caricatured, depending on your perspective) as being more business-friendly — and which has 5 justices.

Regardless, thanks for raising this point. You're right that the absence of a cert. denial dissent does not strictly indicate a unanimous vote.

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

#279
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Interesting. Accessibility sounds like an important indexing signal for search engines. At internet scale companies this seems pitch-worthy to discuss building some training data annotated and building out some automated indexing engine for accessible only filter for results.

Google do reward you for following web accessibility best practices, but it doesn't know if the actual experience is accessible.

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

#280
post #183
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…

Ironically (I cannot seem to word this in my mind without sounding like an ass so please don't take offense), your comment is about 10 lines long on my 15 inch laptop making it somewhat difficult to read for us vision readers. A double new line every few sentences which causes a paragraph on hacker news makes it much easier.

If you make your browser window half width, or increase your text size, you may find it's easier to read. When I'm awake and focused, I can read smaller text across longer lines without problems. When I'm more tired, I need to increase the text size, bring the screen closer, make window widths smaller.

You may also benefit from getting your vision checked. This may be early stages of something occurring, and the sooner it's identified the better.

Post reply on HN