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

81–90 of 620 posts

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

#81

Post by anonytrary »

cochne wrote: post #62
anonytrary wrote: post #25

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.

This would not apply to your street art. 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 s…

Thank you for this snippet. The ADA is somewhat reasonable for having included the "undue burden" clause, however, it is probably an undue burden for a small online website to prove that supporting disabled users would be an undue burden.

At the end of the day, this is just more red tape that will probably hurt small sites or deter them from being made.

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

#82

Post by scottshamus »

chrischen wrote: post #66

Is there a checker to see if a website is accessible, and how to make it accessible (like the ones for SEO and site-speed optimizations)?

There’s a javascript library called aXE that’s pretty good at catching the major things. There’s also a browser plugin to check a site by hand.

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

#83

Post by freeone3000 »

csande17 wrote: post #67

The issue here appears to be whether or not it's Domino's legal (and moral) obligation to make their website compatible with some specific piece of screen-reader software. To me, it seems like they probably should; the APIs are relatively clear, standardized, and easy to use, and there are quite a few people who can't use the website otherwise. I do wonder how far this argument goes, though. Say someone creates a new…

"Undue burden" is the test used. Essentially, how much work is it to create an accessible website?

Websites are navigable by screen readers and tons of other accessibility software by default. Hacker News is completely usable in JAWS. It's the things Domino's layered on top that broke it, so it's Domino's's job to fix it.

Having domino's create a new web browser for physical accessibility devices would be an undue burden. Having domino's fix their aria tags and tab order is not.

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

#84

Post by wlesieutre »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #26
Retric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restaurants don’t need a Braille menu to accommodate blind customers, a sighted employee can walk them through the ordering process. With websites that’s not always an option, which is legally and morally an issue.

But you can call your local Domino's on the phone.

"Sighted people only" discounts is really not a good look though.

If they argue that the website doesn't need to be accessible because blind people can call, that's what all their online only coupons are.

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

#85

Post by freeone3000 »

anonytrary wrote: post #70
dexwiz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If modifying your shop to be accessible to everyone is not profitable for you, then you shouldn't be doing it. All this law does is require businesses to spend more money before they can operate. For now, this will hurt the economy more than it helps it.

It's not profitable. It will never be profitable. The entire point of antidiscrimination legislation like the ADA is to make things that "profit" will not cause to happen, happen, because the alternative is to exclude people based on traits they cannot change.

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

#86

Post by aaomidi »

edoo wrote: post #79
dexwiz wrote: post #48

I see a lot of negativity in the comments. I imagine much of that is gut reactions of web developers hearing they need to do more work. As a web developer that has had to pass an accessibility review from a person who is actually blind each release for the last two years, I can tell you it’s not that hard. Make sure you have a sensible tab order and labels on forms and you are 80% there. The hard issues are creating…

The issue is being forced at gunpoint to build services into your business.

This isn't an issue, its a feature. You live in a society so you plan around to serve that society. If you're not serving a large portion of your population then you're going to be forced to.

This is no different than outlawing racial discrimination.

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

#87

Post by csande17 »

zaroth wrote: post #63
brickpaste wrote: post #24

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…

It's like the Internet Explorer debate all over again: is the problem that my website doesn't support your screen reader, or is the problem that your screen reader doesn't support my website?

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

#88

Post by calvinmorrison »

couchand wrote: post #77

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…

And at the end of the day developers worldwide like all humans choose to keep a job, maintain their livelihood and avoid getting fired.

What I find appauling is I need to be disabled to demand a website that doesn't require font.js and 600 trackers to run, that doesn't intercept my scroll wheel or make me use a Google product for captcha.

hyper text mark up language is dead. Long live the world wide web.

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

couchand wrote: post #77

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…

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by freeone3000 »

anonytrary wrote: post #81
cochne wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would not apply to your street art. 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 s…

Thank you for this snippet. The ADA is somewhat reasonable for having included the "undue burden" clause, however, it is probably an undue burden for a small online website to prove that supporting disabled users would be an undue burden. At the end of the day, this is just more red tape that will probably hurt small sites or deter them from being made.

It's not an undue burden. Either don't break screen readers with javascript bullshit, or un-break them by having a sane tab order and present aria tags and image descriptions. Try it with keyboard navigation, listen to what it sounds like, and if it's functional, you pass. It's not that hard.
Post reply on HN