What’s wrong with using a phone to order pizza? Seems like a reasonable alternative.
Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
361–370 of 620 posts
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is that tabbed interfaces make window resizing harder. Bring back MDIs (maybe)!
It’s the opposite: if you insist on keeping your browser maximized that can mean that you probably need all the width on some other site which scales poorly. I never keep my browser maximized.
As a reference, I maximize my browsers when I'm using developers tools or when I'm using pseudo desktop web apps, usually customer mandated. I'm thinking about Kanbanize, Trello, almost all of Google, Travis, etc. Apps that display a lot of information.
HN and other text based sites are more readable in narrower windows or on a phone.
HN on a phone suffers when comments are deeply nested (this one) and when somebody quotes text using spaces as of it was a block of code.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#363I know the owner of a small brick and mortar store in California. She decided to create a web site to sell her products on line. She got a domain name and a hosting account and installed a canned platform (OpenCart) which allowed her to create her own web site and started to try and sell. Total sales on the web site over three years: about $3,500. Then she received a letter from a lawyer in Florida,telling her that a…
Sounds like whoever sold her the theme didn't bother with accessibility. I think laws like this are good, but at the same time they will end up pushing people to stick to larger sites like shopify or just listing on ebay/amzn to avoid all this.
If the case the GP described is an intended outcome of the law working as designed, I don't think it is a good law.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would a blind person be interested in a painting or car insurance? Another reason I'm sure about it is if there was genuine interest, there would be calls from blind people - "Hey, I'm interested in your products but I'm blind, can you help me with figuring out some things on your site?" or "Hey I'm blind and I have problem accessing certain features on your site, can you please fix those issues?". We haven't got one…
>Would a blind person be interested in a painting or car insurance? Sure, why not? But I'm confused here. Does your website somehow feature both paintings and car insurance?
No, these were obviously examples. Our site sells expensive products that require a certain level of "visual appreciation", just like paintings. No one would buy something like that, without being able to see it.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pardon my curiosity, did you type this on a keyboard by touch typing? If so how do you recognize and correct typos? Or did you use speech recognition? Same question about handling errors. I'd like to make sites I build more accessible, but I must admit I'm only familiar with the bare minimal guidelines I've read in a couple articles. I don't even know if they're correct or up to date. Nobody I've worked for has ever…
> Pardon my curiosity, did you type this on a keyboard by touch typing? If so how do you recognize and correct typos? I'm merely a sighted user here, but I can personally attest that when you've mastered touch-typing, you can tell when you make a mistake and correct it without needing to look at the screen. It is a bit of an eerie feeling the first time you do it. Full disclosure: I touch-typed this reply, and I made…
I've touch-typed for 20 years and sometimes a random friend (whose job isn't related to computers) catches me doing it and is either amazed or thinks I'm showing off. To me, I'm just typing. Like other commenters, I also self-correct while doing it.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess 99.9% are. However, it is pretty hard to order a pizza or buy your weekly load of groceries with a CLI tool :-) If you want to interact with the rest of the world, you will likely need to use the web...
Have you tried Emacs?
Since 23 years now :-)
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#367Blind 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…
Hey, thank you for your insight into the life of blind users. I have often wondered if my sites that I've been part of building have been accessible but without proper guidance or customer requirements, nobody has really cared that much to check out.
Lately I have been part of building a quite popular website in my native country, and this time, as I have had more autonomy than before, decided to go ahead and add as much accessibility helping markup and proper elements as possible. Eg. everything that can be clicked is now a button (no more divs with onClick-handlers) and by the way, is adding tabIndex to divs even sufficient for triggering clicks? Since by default the Enter-key is not bound to trigger the click-event for elements other than buttons and links (I assume).
Anyway, I went ahead and added as much accessibility I could, but some things were bit too much of extra work that I decided not to add them. So I was just wondering, how bad is it when modals don't automatically capture the focus and you can't really travel into them unless moving all the way to end of the document (where the element lies)? From what I glanced from the aria spec, the focus should immediately move into the modal and get trapped where you can only by invoking an action (eg esc-key, click x-button or submit) dismiss them.
Also how important are the aria-labels for buttons and such? Should everything worth noticing be annotated? Or can you guess from say the button text what they are for. Also I read somewhere that inputs should always have labels, but sometimes it's problematic to add them eg dates with three inputs with only one label "Birthdate". Can I supplement the label with some aria-property instead?
Sorry for asking so many long questions, these things have been on my mind a lot and I really haven't had anyone to tell me if the accessibility fields I have added were correct or not. It's quite annoying how confusing the spec is and how difficult it's to know if the aria properties are correct/make sense or not. Eg how many aria-haspopup etc properties should a dropdown have and which of its elements have which.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just install a screen reader and close your eyes.
Cool, I didn't even know that was a thing I could do. I suppose I imagined screen readers as some sort of expensive software.
The open source ones are basically as good as the for-pay ones at this point.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a natural consequence of the way in which the United States chooses to enforce rules like this. In some other countries, there are regulators who do this kind of thing and issue relatively small fines and compliance notices. Since the regulator itself is publically funded, it does not need to live off the fine income. In the US, the choice was made instead to create a private right of action and to allow lega…
> but that is the system the people have decided they want The people haven't decided anything. As usual, someone comes up with an absurd law, or an absurd interpretation of the law and there are not enough people affected to bother challenging it. But that doesn't mean "the people have decided".
"The people have decided not to bother to do anything about it" sounds like the same thing to me.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Would a blind person be interested in a painting or car insurance? Sure, why not? But I'm confused here. Does your website somehow feature both paintings and car insurance?
No, these were obviously examples. Our site sells expensive products that require a certain level of "visual appreciation", just like paintings. No one would buy something like that, without being able to see it.
[deleted]