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

391–400 of 620 posts

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

#391

Post by pakitan »

foldr wrote: post #382
pakitan wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, you're not making a very good case for yourself here. You won't say what your product is, and the examples you give are things that blind people would in fact be interested in.

You're really intent to get me on a technicality. Fine, I'll concede - somewhere out there, there is a blind person whose pride in life is finding the best auto insurance deals for his relatives. And somewhere out there, there is a blind person who buys random paintings online and hangs them on his walls just so he can have fun conversations about them over dinner with friends.

But by and large, blind people don't buy auto insurance because they don't drive and they don't buy paintings because they can't see them. Forcing these businesses to invest excessive efforts to serve 0.0001% of their potential target audience is idiotic.

And no, I'm not going to say what we sell because it's not important and this was clearly an extortion case.

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

#392

Post by NeedMoreTea »

im3w1l wrote: post #389
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has always applied in the UK since the disability act. The chain of liability is similar, the requirement for clause in supplier contract is similar. Yet the third-party (OpenCart) appears to be where liability rests. So she needs to counter sue her supplier. That's just how it works. So I see no difference at all for an aware store owner who wants a website.

Seems like an undue burden to place on a small business owner. Having to both defend in one lawsuit and sue another party when they likely aren't knowledgeable or willing to take the risk of either.

shrug That's the legal system. I didn't make it.

A clause in supplier contract guaranteeing whatever - accessibility or all images being licensed covers you.

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

#394

Post by Vinnl »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #342
Vinnl wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That formatting is to add in small pauses But... The lack of pauses is exactly what makes a tall paragraph hard to read?

Are you arguing that, or offering it as a potential argument? § That's not what mrep claimed made it hard to read. They said it was hard to trace lines. § And there are other ways of adding pauses, on top of those pauses not being very necessary in the first place. I could do without them just fine. § More generally, as long as a big paragraph is focused on one topic, and nobody is doing a point-by-point reply, it wo…

I am arguing that, and it's also how I read mrep's comment: it's a wall of text with no clear pauses, making it hard to read.

And if those §'s are your other ways of adding pauses, then those are entirely insufficient for inserting pauses for most readers, including me: we're not trained to read those characters as pauses.

Sure, there might be other ways. But they're not applied, making the comment harder to follow for some people than it would be had it been subdivided into paragraphs, and mrep was merely helpfully pointing that out in case mltony wanted to keep those people in mind in the future.

But good for you that you're not one of those people, I guess.

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

#395

Post by playpause »

Angostura wrote: post #343
playpause wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one problem with that approach is that blindness isn’t binary. Many registered blind people are partially sighted and use screen readers and other assistive tech to supplement low vision. Another concern: as someone working on a large web development team, I think that maintaining a separate “non-visual” site would entrench a two-tier approach to quality and completeness (noticing and fixing issues, adding ne…

It seems to me that if this ruling is enforced and becomes accepted we may see a welcome move towards 'accessibility first' design - which would be an interesting paradigm shift for many devs.

I would welcome 'accessibility first' if it means people start thinking about 'semantics' again. 10-15 years ago, the web dev world was obsessed with semantics, separation of style and content, the idea you could just edit CSS to do a complete redesign (like csszengarden.com), and your markup could remain untouched, understandable by all devices present and future. I think this notion still holds some power, but it's obviously taken a hit with the component paradigm. The modern approach of 'sprinkle-on' accessibility doesn't work as well, and just feels like a messy extra step you have to do when building a feature. It was much better when people cared about baking it in from the ground up, through considered semantics and document outlines.

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

#396

Post by [deleted] »

freeone3000 wrote: post #75
ccleve wrote: post #58

On the surface, this sounds like a fine thing. Who doesn't want accessible websites? But it really opens a can of worms. What's a place of public accommodation? With brick-and-mortar, it's easy; if you have a physical location open to the general public, it probably qualifies. But on the web? Does my personal website count? What if I sell t-shirts on it? What if I don't sell anything, but have forums where the public…

No, your personal website does not count. Yes, it does if you sell t-shirts. No, a forum is insufficient, it needs to actually be a business. Yes, aria labels are compelled speech, but they're upheld[1]. There would be an exemption if the burden was "undue", but you're not going to meet that by claiming it's a few extra hours of work. If accessibility standards change, you are compelled to upgrade your site if you're…

[deleted]

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

#397

Post by marktangotango »

dansingerman wrote: post #315
dorgo wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it really is just setting tab indexes in correct order, as well as making sure items have alt and title tags Sounds like it could be part of SEO effort. If it can be checked programmatically then search engines should add accessibilty to their ranking algorithms. It worked for mobile.

This is a great comment. Imagine the investment that would suddenly start in accessibility if Google publicly announced it was an important part of search engine rankings.

These scanners exist, and they can serve a dual purpose; scan the web for websites to sue. And yes this is happening.

It's important to note that not every site on the web falls under ADA. The crucial part of this issue is that the business must have a physical “brick and mortar” location to fall under the ADA. Presumably purely online retail businesses are not affected.

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

#398

Post by skywhopper »

pakitan wrote: post #354
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our site is of zero interest to them. How do you know? It's not like blind people are all the same. They're just people with the same wide range of interests as everyone else.

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…

I'm really curious why you think a blind person wouldn't be "interested" in car insurance. They may not be able to drive themselves, but that doesn't mean they can't be the person paying the bills in a family that owns cars and thus has to have car insurance.

As for paintings... there was really zero information on the site other than pictures of paintings? Nothing about the artist, the size, or the price? You apparently don't realize that a lot of people who rely on screen readers are able to see to some extent. They may use the screen reader to navigate your site or make purchases, but they may still be able to see the paintings (sometimes by magnifying the screen greatly and looking closely at the details) if not in exactly the same way that you do.

I don't disbelieve that shakedowns like you describe happen. But there is a reason for the rules that you are apparently breaking. It also sounds like you don't really believe that disabled folks deserve any consideration.

You say you don't hear from them, asking questions or complaining, probably because the vast majority just give up when they encounter websites like the ones you create. They are likely very tired of contacting website owners (assuming they can figure out how to do so--not easy if the site isn't accessible!) who send back insults about how they can't possibly be interested in the contents of the site or accusing them of trying to shake the website owner down.

The sort of thinking you are putting on display here is exactly why the ADA is so important.

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

#399

Post by foldr »

pakitan wrote: post #391
foldr wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you're not making a very good case for yourself here. You won't say what your product is, and the examples you give are things that blind people would in fact be interested in.

You're really intent to get me on a technicality. Fine, I'll concede - somewhere out there, there is a blind person whose pride in life is finding the best auto insurance deals for his relatives. And somewhere out there, there is a blind person who buys random paintings online and hangs them on his walls just so he can have fun conversations about them over dinner with friends. But by and large, blind people don't bu…

> I'm not going to say what we sell because it's not important

It seems to me that what you sell is the central issue here, as you're claiming that blind people wouldn't be interested in it. I'm not really willing to take your word for it, given the other examples you've used.

In the case of car insurance, it's obvious that people don't only buy insurance for cars that they drive. Consider e.g. an employee of a company looking to buy insurance for company cars.

There are also lots of blind artists and blind people interested in visual arts, as you can discover from a simple google search.

It's worth remembering also that many "blind" people are partially sighted, so that they may be unable to read text but still appreciate visual arts in a direct perceptual way. On top of that, there are people who have lost their sight, and who may still have a keen interest in the visual arts formed when they were still able to see.

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

#400

Post by skywhopper »

pakitan wrote: post #391
foldr wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you're not making a very good case for yourself here. You won't say what your product is, and the examples you give are things that blind people would in fact be interested in.

You're really intent to get me on a technicality. Fine, I'll concede - somewhere out there, there is a blind person whose pride in life is finding the best auto insurance deals for his relatives. And somewhere out there, there is a blind person who buys random paintings online and hangs them on his walls just so he can have fun conversations about them over dinner with friends. But by and large, blind people don't bu…

Your language here is really insulting. Take a step back and consider maybe you don't know everything there is to know about how visually impaired individuals live their lives. They aren't all (or even mostly) fully blind! They have families which usually include fully sighted individuals! Meanwhile they are also capable human beings who have all the same needs and concerns about day-to-day life as anyone else.
Post reply on HN