Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

601–610 of 620 posts

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

#601

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…

I develop accessible android apps. Between complicated designs, broken android libraries, different talkback behaviours, and vendor bugs, accessibility can be very difficult. The effort we expend on accessibility (including dedicated testers) is massive. Only large organisations can afford to do this.

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

#602
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid franchisee. I kept a coupon active for years after the promo ended for one guy. He liked his $11.99 Veggie lovers. The coupon was hidden, but if you manually typed the code, it worked. I called him personally after he complained to corporate about the promo ending. I walked him through how to get the deal and he ordered weekly until I sold the store. The new owners deactivated all old promos. He had my cell ph…

How much did it cost you to keep providing the discounted price?

It was $5 cheaper than regular menu price. But he ordered a literal 100 times a year with the coupon, tipped the delivery driver $5 every time and the order still was more profitable than $15 of chicken wings.

Once the coupon left, he went to the competition. I used to spend about $1,000 a month in advertising just to get a few new customers to call. Keeping the ones you have is orders of magnitude cheaper, even if they complain about "cold pizza" once a month or so to get a free pie.

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

#603
post #574
post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I considered them, but blind enough to appreciate visual art but too blind to use a webpage seems like a rather narrow group to me. It's one of those things where I would very much need evidence accept.

>I considered them, By which you mean, you decided without actually asking any of them or doing any investigation that a certain group of people don’t appreciate visual art. The vast majority of people using screen readers have some degree of vision. I would not assume that they have no appreciation of visual art. The ADA is needed because people have so many assumptions about people with disabilities that they don’t…

And I ask of you. How many are there. How large is this population. If you support regulation, give numbers to back it up. The absence of regulation is the default state, and to introduce some should require not a feel good statement, but a concrete estimate of how much impact it will have vs the potential cost.

You don't need to convince me that it would make some people's life better. That could be said of any expense made on somebody's behalf. You have to show that the cost-benefit ratio makes sense.

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

#604
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…

> there really is no reason for even mom and pop sites to not provide even a base level of accessibility Because it costs money to do so, and sometimes mom and pop sites are barely scraping by to begin with. It's also their prerogative to make the content accessible or inaccessible to whomever they see fit - it's their loss if someone cannot buy their product, but it's also their choice to accept that loss. I think i…

The United States has already decided that businesses in general (ie. brick & mortar stores) do not have the prerogative to make their content accessible or inaccessible to whomever they see fit. Including websites makes perfect sense.

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

#605
post #603
post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I considered them, By which you mean, you decided without actually asking any of them or doing any investigation that a certain group of people don’t appreciate visual art. The vast majority of people using screen readers have some degree of vision. I would not assume that they have no appreciation of visual art. The ADA is needed because people have so many assumptions about people with disabilities that they don’t…

And I ask of you. How many are there. How large is this population. If you support regulation, give numbers to back it up. The absence of regulation is the default state, and to introduce some should require not a feel good statement, but a concrete estimate of how much impact it will have vs the potential cost. You don't need to convince me that it would make some people's life better. That could be said of any expe…

It's not the government's job to figure out what blind and partially sighted people are and aren't interested in buying. Would you really support regulation that attempted to distinguish between "products blind people are interested in" and "products blind people aren't interested in"? That seems entirely unworkable.

If you wish to continue making unwarranted assumptions about what blind people are interested in buying, that's your call. But the law doesn't (and shouldn't) back you up.

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

#606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that tabbed interfaces make window resizing harder. Bring back MDIs (maybe)!

Tree-Style-Tabs (Firefox extension) prevents this issue.

Just tried out Tree style tabs, how does this prevent this issue? I have two pages in two tabs open. To read one I resize the window, I go to the other it has been resized also.

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

#607
post #603
post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I considered them, By which you mean, you decided without actually asking any of them or doing any investigation that a certain group of people don’t appreciate visual art. The vast majority of people using screen readers have some degree of vision. I would not assume that they have no appreciation of visual art. The ADA is needed because people have so many assumptions about people with disabilities that they don’t…

And I ask of you. How many are there. How large is this population. If you support regulation, give numbers to back it up. The absence of regulation is the default state, and to introduce some should require not a feel good statement, but a concrete estimate of how much impact it will have vs the potential cost. You don't need to convince me that it would make some people's life better. That could be said of any expe…

> You have to show that the cost-benefit ratio makes sense.

Why? No one is saying that it's always a sound business idea to accommodate people with disabilities. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But not everything is about the business owner's bottom line.

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

#608
post #563
post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with most research, take multiple sources. A quick survey showed this (admittedly rather old paper), but it does show the immediate effect: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/146368.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_... >On average over the post-ADA period, employment of men with disabilities was 7.2 percentage points lower than before the act was passed. In addition, wages of disabled men did not change with the passage of the A…

The negative effects on employment were a blip: https://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html

It's great to think that the ADA damage was short-lived. But rather than a 'blip', it lasted 'through the 1990s' by that reference (thanks!) which cut out the prime earning years of a whole generation of disabled people.

Again, Law of Unintended Consequences.

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

#609
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…

> there really is no reason for even mom and pop sites to not provide even a base level of accessibility Because it costs money to do so, and sometimes mom and pop sites are barely scraping by to begin with. It's also their prerogative to make the content accessible or inaccessible to whomever they see fit - it's their loss if someone cannot buy their product, but it's also their choice to accept that loss. I think i…

Only 3% of the US is visually impaired, and often poorer than average due to disability, so for the vast majority of individual businesses, ignoring them would be less than a rounding error in revenue, and therefore warrant no consideration of accessibility. But the point of a society is to decide collectively upon certain moral imperatives that are deemed so fundamental to our collective identity as to take precedence over Randian self-interest, righteous indignation about "muh freedumb" and "don't tread on me" notwithstanding. One of those moral imperatives in the US is the protection of the rights of vulnerable minority classes so that we don't become a caste-based society where the circumstances of your birth (or unfortunate mishap) can indelibly decide your fate by limiting your access to society. This is actually MORE meritocratic than the alternative, and so I think, upon careful consideration, you may find that it dovetails nicely with even extreme Libertarianism.

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

#610
post #578

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.

Popular web design frameworks like Bootstrap consider accessibility and encourage it in their documentation. See: https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.3/getting-started/accessibil... Are there any accessibility-first web design frameworks?

I think the United States Web Design System might fit in that category. It's made by the US Digital Services, and describes itself as "A design system for the federal government. We make it easier to build accessible, mobile-friendly government websites for the American public."

It's a well thought-out framework and from what I've read, accessibility was taken into account in the very first stage of the redesign of the new V2

https://designsystem.digital.gov/

Totally free since it's paid for with US tax dollars.

Post reply on HN