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…
Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
601–610 of 620 posts
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#602Earlier 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?
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
#603Earlier 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…
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
#604So 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…
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#605Earlier 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…
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
#606Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is that tabbed interfaces make window resizing harder. Bring back MDIs (maybe)!
Tree-Style-Tabs (Firefox extension) prevents this issue.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#607Earlier 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…
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
#608Earlier 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
Again, Law of Unintended Consequences.
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#609So 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…
Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible
#610Earlier 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?
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.