Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

441–450 of 620 posts

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

#441
post #430

I'm not seeing much mention of Net Neutrality or what this means in the grand scheme of open & free web vs Gov't control of it. Any thoughts?

There are already lots of regulations that target e-commerce [0]. Net neutrality isn't about the freedom to serve any content you want, it's about the discrimination and prioritization of certain types of network traffic [1].

[0]: https://www.justia.com/business-operations/managing-your-bus...

[1]: https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

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

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mildly amusing. I definitely find this a little annoying too. If you make the browser window narrower the eye has a lot less trouble moving from the end of one line back to the start of the next. I like wide screens because they make it better for having two apps side by side, rather than one app full width .

Hacker News could easily set a max-width on the problematic items. Every designer (and so should every web developer) knows that the sweet spot for reading is around 60 characters and a column of text if readable between 40 and 60 characters. Check for example the free course from https://betterwebtype.com/

> Every designer (and so should every web developer) knows that the sweet spot for reading is around 60 characters and a column of text if readable between 40 and 60 characters.

That is interesting. For source code, I've always preferred maintaining a maximum line length of 80 characters. But there are plenty of people who prefer significantly longer line lengths because they feel it's more readable that way.

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

#443
post #293
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have ~4.77 billion people on the internet. Assuming all of Canada was blind, that's 0.77% of total users. Under most circumstances, I get that some level of accessibility is reasonable, but if you're expecting the same level of UI investment there for <1% of the population, I'd call that insane. Here, he can still call in and order the pizza.

TBH personally I find this comment exceptionally strange given the rigors of acceptable limits among software uptimes and reliability outside of accessibility concerns. Netflix would probably not tolerate an entire country's access being revoked from their service for a technical reason they could fix. If AWS had a 0.77% downtime rate for all of their services, it would be a lot of services and a ton of bad press from businesspeople that are losing money due to AWS being down. If the Bloomberg terminal went down 0.77% of the time, it'd probably be considered completely unacceptable as a service to its userbase.

0.77% is something that would be protested ordinarily, except when it comes to accessibility concerns. Why?

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

#444
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…

Why wouldn't a blind person just call for a pizza?

Exactly the same reasons why a sighted person wouldn't.

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

#445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's obviously taken a hit with the component paradigm

Can you please explain how the component paradigm is at odds with semantic markup? Is it just that developers are now satisfied with the semantics being in their component names and props, and don't care if it actually gets rendered as undifferentiated divs?

My own hypothesis is that React gave developers permission to question some things that were previously deemed sacred in web development, and developers went too far with that. Using a component framework like React or Vue is not inherently at odds with producing good semantic markup.

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

#446
post #406
post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not ignoring it. I simply don't believe that he/she is selling a product which would be unusually uninteresting to blind people. People with visual disabilities are a few percent of the population.

Who has got more information here, you, who has no idea what the OP is selling, or OP who is actually selling the thing? "I simply don't believe" is not a great argument, when the previous car insurance and painting analogies proved to me that you can conjure up a hypothetical interest of a blind person about anything.

It's not only the information about the thing OP is selling, it's also the information about blind people OP seems to be lacking.

Like, how can anyone state that "blind people aren't interested in this" seriously? Like there exists a bullet list of things that blind people like.

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

#448
post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you surprised? He's got a product which he believes has no value to blind people and a record of exactly zero people calling to complain, but he's getting shit on by the a11y brigade anyway. I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base. It's very easy to tell others to do something a certain way with a co…

> It's very easy to tell others to do something a certain way with a condescending tone from behind your screen if you've got no stakes and don't have to do any of the work involved.

Isn't this exactly what you're doing here, condescendingly name-calling people and dismissing their opinions?

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

#449
post #297
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…

> 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.

I would argue that accessibility is already part of the ranking algorithm because accessibility and good UX go hand-in-hand.

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

#450
post #412
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who has got more information here, you, who has no idea what the OP is selling, or OP who is actually selling the thing? "I simply don't believe" is not a great argument, when the previous car insurance and painting analogies proved to me that you can conjure up a hypothetical interest of a blind person about anything.

> previous car insurance and painting anecdotes proved to me that you can conjure up a hypothetical interest of a blind person about anything. These aren’t hypothetical! Blind people really are interested in both these things, as you can easily find out by googling — or just using your common sense. Like OP, you’re illustrating exactly why we need the ADA. People often have wildly inaccurate perceptions about what pe…

> Like OP, you’re illustrating exactly why we need the ADA.

Firmly agree. It's amazing to see how many cling to the view that people with disabilities are this alien group of "others" that think differently and are probably only interested in things for disabled people.

Post reply on HN