61–70 of 620 posts
I’m a bit shocked that the Dominos CLI wasn’t brought up as a defense. https://github.com/freecode/dominos-cli Or https://github.com/jkereako/dominos-pizza-cli/blob/master/do...
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.
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 steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden;"
Are you arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act is wrong, or that making a website accessible is an undue burden? (while say, ramps for wheelchairs is not)
Target.com is accessible because of a similar case from 2006. This appears to be a decent summary: https://www.jimthatcher.com/law-target.htm
My inexpert suspicion is that investment in better screen reading technology could make millions of sites accessible which currently are not, and that there should be some way to meet in the middle -- perhaps companies funding a consortium to push screen reading tech forward while at the same time making it an order of magnitude easier for a site to be accessible.
This seems like overreach. Clearly the law doesn’t cover websites. Why can’t congress just pass a law to make the ADA apply to websites? It’s not SCOTUS’s job to create law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a myth that reasonable accommodations are too much of a burden for a small business to handle. Having a menu made into Braille for example isn’t going to cost a ton. On the upside, they would also now have business available that they didn’t have in the past.
I wonder why Domino's having a phone number to call in orders isn't enough of an accommodation in this case?
I do wonder how far this argument goes, though. Say someone creates a new device that allows people with some incredibly rare motor impairment to access the Internet. Is it now the responsibility of everyone in the world to add support for that device?
There has been a long standing precedent around the ADA requiring web accessibility: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the_B... . A number of companies have been (more or less) blatantly violating the law in this area. Framework authors in particular have often ignored the value of accessible, semantic markup. Many devs come to the web knowing only frameworks (and not the underlying web technolog…
There is contradictory case law (like Southwest Airlines 2002) that says the ADA does not extend to virtual / online stores.
Companies are policing themselves on this issue out of liability to be sued, which is a far cry from a declarative right to have accommodations online. It is not that certain.
Target.com is accessible because of a similar case from 2006. This appears to be a decent summary: https://www.jimthatcher.com/law-target.htm
Are screen readers still as terrible as that article makes them sound? Regretfully, I've never actually tried to use one, nor worked with anyone who needed one. I imagine they are basically horrific to use on almost any modern website. My inexpert suspicion is that investment in better screen reading technology could make millions of sites accessible which currently are not, and that there should be some way to meet…
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.
Your street chalk is art, and isn’t required by anyone. But if you want to order online, then you increasing often have to interact with a website. Brick and mortar have employees that could help you, websites do not. The reverse of this situation would be telling people with wheelchairs that they should only shop online instead of expecting accessible stores.