Supreme Court Allows Blind People To Sue Retailers If Their Websites Are Not Accessible (latimes.com) 196
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way Monday for blind people to sue retailers if their websites are not accessible to these people. "In a potentially far-reaching move, the justices turned down an appeal from Domino's and let stand a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling holding that the Americans With Disabilities Act protects access not just to restaurants and stores, but also to the websites and apps of those businesses," reports Los Angeles Times. From the report: Guillermo Robles, who is blind, filed suit in Los Angeles three years ago and complained he had been unable to order a pizza online because the Domino's website lacked the software that would allow him to communicate. He cited the ADA, which guarantees to persons with a disability "full and equal enjoyment the goods and services ... of any place of public accommodations." Lawyers for Domino's agreed this provision applied to its pizza stores, but not its website.
Last year, however, the 9th Circuit ruled for Robles and said the law applied to its online services as well as the store. "The ADA mandates that places of public accommodation, like Domino's, provide auxiliary aids and services to make visual materials available to individuals who are blind," the appeals court said in January. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business groups who said they represented 500,000 restaurants and 300,000 businesses joined in an appeal urging the high court to review the 9th Circuit's decision. They said they feared a "tsunami of litigation," and worried that judges nationwide would see the appeals court's decision as "imposing a nationwide website-accessibility mandate." But without comment or dissent on Monday, the high court said it would not hear the case of Domino's Pizza vs. Robles.
Last year, however, the 9th Circuit ruled for Robles and said the law applied to its online services as well as the store. "The ADA mandates that places of public accommodation, like Domino's, provide auxiliary aids and services to make visual materials available to individuals who are blind," the appeals court said in January. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business groups who said they represented 500,000 restaurants and 300,000 businesses joined in an appeal urging the high court to review the 9th Circuit's decision. They said they feared a "tsunami of litigation," and worried that judges nationwide would see the appeals court's decision as "imposing a nationwide website-accessibility mandate." But without comment or dissent on Monday, the high court said it would not hear the case of Domino's Pizza vs. Robles.
Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
Or at least, it makes more sense than forcing someone to expand their bathroom. It costs very little to make a website accessible, all you have to do is understand HTML and use best practices. If it's too hard for you, then you can get that functionality from a CMS.
Re: (Score:2)
Genuinely curious on the state of things with regards to accessibility tech.
The last time I had any involvement with a web project (not _that_ long ago, but predates the current wave of bootstrap and all that), most screen reader software required you to make your website a throwback to the early 90s to have any chance of accessibility. This was well into the era where ajax was becoming the norm, and the web guys ended up basically just having a separate accessible version that looked like shit but could b
Re: (Score:2)
Browsers can actually mostly do it right now without violating competing interpretations of the standard. This was one of the big "hidden" features of the XHTML 1.0 Strict revamp along with the industry-wide push towards browsers that actually tried to support open standards rather than purposefully building in strategic incompatibilities.
Now the trick is finding web coders who know how to make it happen, after 2+ decades of drumming competence and ethics out of front-end coding departments.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
...This was one of the big "hidden" features of the XHTML 1.0 Strict revamp...
XHTML? Sorry, but HTML5 kicked that ugly thing to the curb.
XHTML5 (Score:3)
XHTML? Sorry, but HTML5 kicked that ugly thing to the curb.
HTML5 defines both an almost-but-not-quite-SGML syntax and an XML syntax that is largely compatible with XHTML 1 [whatwg.org]. It's not officially called XHTML5, but that's what it is.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. XHTML was a great attempt to bring sanity to web development by enforcing the least restrictive of best practices, for example, actually requiring closing element tags to accompany opening tags, in the correct order. The problem is that that concept was too deep for web 'developers' who preferred to just throw tag soup at the screen until a page half-assed worked in their browser of choice. Hence, why browsers today are some of the most bloated, complicated and bug-prone software applications in existence.
Now I see the same lazy thinking from the web 'designers' in these comments, rueing the fact they might actually have to put in the slight bit of extra effort needed to add readable text to their mangled-Javascript image repositories they call pages so that the visually-impaired can actually use them.
If you can't see it in Lynx and Mutt, it's not real.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the developers, it's the data entry. You can be as perfect and diligent as you like, your perfect CMS has to be used by people who know a handful of tags and don't care. You don't have the time nor was the project budgeted for some amazing editor that ensures compliance with every input, you were paid just enough for a database backed form entry. So every time one of those people makes a typo, fails to close a tag, copy/pastes a latin-1 character into a utf-8 document, that page will just outright
Re: Makes sense (Score:2)
Until now.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
I tried converting one of my open source projects to use accessibility standards and failed.
The problem is that accessibility standards are confusingly written for somebody not already deeply entrenched in the field and information on them is scarce and lacking. Beyond that it is very hard to test without spending lots of money on hardware and software that uses the standards and in general will negatively affect usability of non-standard UI components for people who don't need accessibility features.
I'd like to try again if I can find the time, but making even a simple project accessible is not just a matter of adding tweaking HTML.
Re: (Score:2)
Which project was it? Do you have a link to the repo? It would be interesting to take a look at what is involved in your specific case.
Re: (Score:3)
All the major browsers offer native support for the accessibility APIs of the common platforms. I admittedly have no idea what the state of screen readers, etc. on Linux is, but I know they used to exist and I'm sure they don't cost "lots of money". On Windows and Mac, they're built in - have been for ages - and there are also (free) tools that let you directly inspect the accessibility tree to see why the screen
Re: Makes sense (Score:2)
You're thinking of ARIA, which was an extension for both HTML and XHTML. HTML5 embraced a lot of the ARIA semantics and built them into the core element set (e.g., the tag), but the rest is still supported by HTML5.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
All you really have to do that you might not do otherwise is to put alt tags on all the images used for navigation, and make good descriptive links, and have transcripts for videos. But here is a quick reference [w3.org]. It really does boil down to just making a proper website, and not some whizbang javascript shitshow.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the argument back in the day, but back then it equated to "anything added/altered by js after the page is loaded won't work". Like I said I do have to assume that since this is now so prevalent that software has improved somewhat, but the cynic in my wouldn't be chocked to find out that it hasn't.
some whizbang javascript shitshow
.
Agree that a lot of the web goes overboard, but I wouldn't want to go back to the days where every interaction required a full page reload. There's lots of cases where it makes perfect sense for a websit
Re: (Score:2)
If an image consists of a line graph plot of time series data from a sensor or database, such as inflation-adjusted price of a 2-topping medium pizza over time, extracting the relevant trends in order to construct alternate text could get very tricky very fast. If an image or video is uploaded by a user, creating descriptive text or a transcript would require expensive AI or expensive humans.
Re: (Score:3)
If an image consists of a line graph plot of time series data from a sensor or database, such as inflation-adjusted price of a 2-topping medium pizza over time, extracting the relevant trends in order to construct alternate text could get very tricky very fast.
Only if you trick yourself. You use the same data used to create the graph, but present it as a table.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
This legal result is not the sort of "oh golly, we didn't know which way it would go" that the news makes it out to be.
There was no good argument, given the text of the ADA, that websites don't have to comply. People have known for many years that this was a requirement, and many sites became compliant long ago.
And it was a great thing, not only for disabled but for the few anti-remote-scripting nerds who understood the issue. Basically, it goes like this: you have to make the site work normally without javascript when the CSS is turned off, but then you add back all the JS bullshit with the CSS.
So for example, if you surf without JS and you visit a news site, you probably only see a blank window. Instead of turning JS on, just turn the stylesheet off instead! POW! Your news article now loads, 90s style. You're welcome. So few people bother that they barely notice.
On the dev side, frameworks have no trouble making things work well this way. It doesn't really even change the cost, unless you have keyword billing, because the same ability to work without the bullshit is used by the testing frameworks for other reasons. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. This problem only started popping up with the big brands again because they're outsourcing to a country that doesn't even know what Section 508 is.
Re: (Score:2)
You make one website for the sighted and another sub-website a simplified version of the other web site for the blind, text based everything no images required, really quite simple and linking to the same details, price, menu, ingredients. All it needs is an invisible to the sighted link on the base web site to the website for the blind.
Re: (Score:2)
Do websites not already often include alternate renderings for, eg., print versions ?
It woudl be good to see some alternative solutions for screen hardware that would bring a better experience to the blind and partialy sighted than just having the text read in a monotone.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno how far back this project is, but it was well before 2014.. probably closer to 2008.
It was government though, so it was no doubt hampered by bureaucracy. Then again, that bureaucracy is probably the only reason an accessible version was even a requirement to begin with, so I guess some good with the bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Not arguing whether or not its a good idea, but I'm surprised its inexpensive. A lot may depend on what functionality needs to be accessible. Any site that sells products based on images of those products may have to put significant effort into providing text descriptions.
Large companies may already do this, but there may be a lot of small business websites that don't follow good practices.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say still virtually all government and major public services should be accessible. That ranges from doing your taxes to buying train tickets. Even in those cases there will b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is also easier than ever with the modern tools available. I use the Google Wave plugin for Chrome; it will highlight errors in your page, suggest fixes, and explain why fixing something is important. Incredibly useful! If you don't like google, numerous other websites and plugins provide similar functionality. Same for other issues like evaluating for color blindness and readability; there are tools that will analyze and make suggestions. For any reasonably large organization there really isn't a good ex
Analogy to Civil Engineers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Analogy to Civil Engineers (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, we probably shouldn't be called software engineers when we lack a formal engineering degree.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, we probably shouldn't be called software engineers when we lack a formal engineering degree.
Speak for yourself, I have an engineering degree.
This frustrated me to no end at university seeing people take computer science in the hopes to become a "software engineer".
Computer science is, well, a science. If you want to be a mechanical engineer then you don't major in physics. If you want to be a chemical engineer then you don't major in chemistry. If you want to be a computer engineer then you don't major in computer science. While software engineering is becoming distinct from computer engineeri
or... drive a train (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF... if you can drive a train. You win and none of the rest matters.
Re: (Score:2)
What should websites do? Full text? Text everywhere?
More?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they should. I keep websites accessible for this for a living. It's not at all hard to make a website accessible. You actually have to go out of your way to make a website inaccessible. When you keep accessibility as you template things, all you have to do is know the rules (WCAG 2.0 AA are the de facto standards) so that you don't ADD things that make your site inaccessible.
I guarantee to you that blind people buy hunting and camping equipment. They live full, well-rounded lives. They probably won't b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you can't make your website WCAG 2.0 compliant, then you're terrible at your job. If you — as a business — make something for the public, you have to understand that people with disabilities are part of the public. About 20% of the public, actually. Disabilities are basically a matter of time for everyone.
The Supreme Court just basically said that this is so obvious that they aren't even going to hear the case. You aren't going to find a lawyer to back you up on this. Not a good one, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you'll find a lawyer, even a good one, that'll take the case as long as your being billed by the hour, not the result of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't make your website WCAG 2.0 compliant, then you're terrible at your job.
That's possible. I've done many jobs over the years, including some web development. WCAG 2.0 has never been something I had to deal with yet.
If you â" as a business â" make something for the public, you have to understand that people with disabilities are part of the public. About 20% of the public, actually. Disabilities are basically a matter of time for everyone.
Yes, 20% have some disability, that doesn't mean 20% of the population need an accommodation on a website. There's people in my extended family with disabilities. Disabilities like lost fingers, arthritis, diabetes, various vision problems (not legally blind though). None of these have anything to do with access to a website. Even then the websites like this piz
Re: (Score:2)
Also, hanging up on people because they have a disability is completely discriminatory. Total civil lawsuit material.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, you need to take a breath. Go here: http://adagreatlakes.org/Busin... [adagreatlakes.org]
Check out the "10 Small Business Mistakes" video that looks like it was recorded with a camcorder in 2001. https://www.ada.gov/videogalle... [ada.gov]
You're deeply wrong. There's a quarter century of court cases on this.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You're deeply wrong. There's a quarter century of court cases on this.
Whatever. A blind person that takes someone to court over not being able to place an order by a website when they can place an order by phone is in my opinion abusing the system. This was never the intent of the ADA and people that sue over things like this are busybodies, assholes, and not improving anything for their case. They tend to make companies not take complaints seriously and make jobs for people like myself harder just for their own sick amusement.
The links you gave point out limits to the ADA
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was denied by the Supreme Court. There is no appeal. This is done. It's not bullshit. You just don't like it.
The law says that when you do something for the public, you do something for the whole public. Everyone. No ifs ands or buts. If you make a public website, it has to be available to the public — everyone. You don't get to pretend like you — YOU — know what is best for the general public. That has been settled. The law doesn't need to say specifically what "accommodation" means b
Re: (Score:2)
It was denied by the Supreme Court. There is no appeal. This is done. It's not bullshit. You just don't like it.
It's not done yet. Read the article.
Even if this meant no more appeals there is still the ability to amend the law. This is still abuse of the ADA to me.
Oh, and "settled" cases have been taken up again by SCOTUS before.
Re: (Score:2)
''people that sue over things like this are busybodies, assholes,''
Um, no they're not. They are attorneys who make a good living at assuring that businesses are compliant with the law [or at least make a good faith effort at compliance].
''..and not improving anything for their case.''
No, business that ignores mandated standards improve the complainant's bank account and effect a change for compliance. It's the law... comply, compensate or change the law. Otherwise, be prepared to be ''lawyer food''
When the buyer is not the recipient (Score:2)
You're playing the bona fide occupational qualifications card, and it's not quite as broad as someone might think when a blind person is buying products or services for someone else who is sighted to use. Consider the following cases:
Imagine I'm building a website for a store selling hunting and camping gear. I'm selling bows and arrows, crossbows and bolts, targets, ammunition, kerosene lanterns, fishing poles, generators, tents, and so on. Why should I be held to the standard of having to accommodate blind customers on this website?
Because the blind customer is buying gifts for a sighted family member.
Suppose I have a customer that sells prescription and non-prescription eyeglasses. Maybe someone that is legally blind wants
...to buy eyeglasses for her sighted husband.
Maybe I have a customer that runs a school for commercial driver licenses. Or a school to train airplane pilots.
The blind parent is visiting the website to evaluate schools for his or her sighted child.
If I want a pizza but for some reason I can't use their website then I'll pick up a telephone and call them.
And pay a surcharge in the form of ineligibility for online-only discoun
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
WOW!! The ADA was written exactly to prevent situations like you present. Your time is so much more valuable than a handicapped customers?
If they have a handicap, and they are an asshole, then I'll hang up on them. Just like I would on any asshole that calls.
You get to decide who is worthy of using your products?
I'm not going to go out of my way to make a website screen reader compatible for products and services that a blind person cannot legally use. I gave plenty of examples. I'm not making the decision, the government did. If some asshole wants to make a case over this then they should not get far. Just like this asshole that had to make a case over a website when there was a phone line
How do blind people access a website? (Score:2)
Not trying to troll here but what kind of 'software' is this person demanding?
I can understand that visually impaired people can be helped with large fonts, contrast and an alternative layout,
but how does a blind person access a website?
Re:How do blind people access a website? (Score:4, Interesting)
OCR screen readers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are lazy assholes, even nerds, news at 11.
Re:How do blind people access a website? (Score:4, Informative)
The W3C has a whole initiative [w3.org] explaining how blind people access websites and how websites may be designed to facilitate that access.
Oddly when people research how to build a standards-compliant website [w3.org] they hit the HTML, Javascript, Graphics, and A/V standards but stop short of the "Accessibility" standards that explain all of this in great detail.
You don't even need them. (Score:3)
ANY *correctly* written HTML page is presentation agnostic and works for any and all kinds of presentation. Visual, audio, screen reader, parsing bot, you name it.
It's not even hard!
1. Write your document in plain text.
2. Use tags to mark up which bits are what, semantically. (E.g. "This is the title. This is a list." etc.) This also adds structure. Use CSS classes/ids where HTML is lacking, but try to avoid.
3. NOW write your CSS an start thinking about how it should look or sound. (Yes, CSS has audio prope
What a disaster.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no legal guidelines for what constitutes an ADA compliant website or online service.
The Supreme Court should have taken this case and forced congress to write some laws that extend ADA to the online world, instead we are now stuck applying handicap access ramps to websites.
This makes no sense and will allow parasite lawyers to continue to shakedown people and companies who create actual wealth.
https://www.latimes.com/busine... [latimes.com]
FTA
"No formal government standards exist for private businesses to follow to ensure their websites comply with the ADA, although a consortium of web innovators has created guidelines, known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, to make websites more accessible to disabled people. Government websites already follow those guidelines, but private business websites, which are typically loaded with images and video, tend to be more difficult to overhaul to meet the guidelines, experts say."
There are disabled people and lawyers that have nothing better to do all day than collaborate and sue people A-Z.
Only in America.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are no legal guidelines for what constitutes an ADA compliant website or online service.
There are no legal guidelines, but there are broadly accepted standards [w3.org] and any website developed by the basically competent is most of the way to compliance. The only atypical item is transcriptions of video-only content, which can be done in software easily enough. If you make a website out of HTML and CSS, and you put alt tags on your images (especially any used for navigation) then you're most of the way there already.
There are disabled people and lawyers that have nothing better to do all day than collaborate and sue people A-Z.
Only in America.
People who only know America always say things like that [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you make a website out of HTML and CSS, and you put alt tags on your images (especially any used for navigation) then you're most of the way there already.
alt tags, text, and audio cues are what was just ruled an ADA violation.
Go look at https://www.dominos.com/ [dominos.com]
(Hopefully slashdot won't munge this)
<img src="https://cache.dominos.com/olo/6_2_3/assets/build/market/US/_en/images/promo/2018-side-perfect-combo-desktop.jpg" class="promo__image " alt="2 Medium 1-Topping Pizzas, 16-piece Parmesan Bread Bites, 8 Piece Cinnamon Twists and a 2 Liter of Coke for $19.99." data-quid="">
Every image has an ALT tag. The wayback machine only goes back to 2015 but those
Re:What a disaster.... (Score:4)
citation needed]
What a complete shit way to argue a point. You were sitting in front of an internet connected computer and you couldn't type the terms into a search engine ?
Took me less than 10 seconds
https://www.supremecourt.gov/D... [supremecourt.gov]
There's 5 amicus curiae briefs right there explaining the problems
Re: (Score:2)
What a complete shit way to argue a point. You were sitting in front of an internet connected computer and you couldn't type the terms into a search engine ?
Which terms? I searched a couple of times and didn't get back what I wanted, perhaps because I didn't know what to look for. AFAICT this isn't a case where I could have just C&P'd a sentence from what I wrote into google, but maybe you could prove me wrong.
There's 5 amicus curiae briefs right there explaining the problems
Let's see...
Re: (Score:2)
They have nothing better to do than try to live in the world like everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand a personal website not including alt text. But a professionally created websit
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies want everything to be online because it's cheaper for them. No rent or staffing for physical shops/offices, no call centres, just do it all online or via their app.
It's no wonder the number of lawsuits is rising if people with disabilities are unable to access those sites.
The lack of a standard is a red herring. What do you want, a law that says the site must pass the W3C validator? Actually, that wouldn't be so bad... No, my point was that being legally required to use one specific technology is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of sites run on a CMS these days, Wordpress being the most popular. Most of the work to support this stuff is done by the CMS developers and some by the theme developers.
The people building individual web sites shouldn't have to worry about it too much, it should be mostly automatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't write a law to cover all the possible ways people with disabilities may need adaptions. It depends on the disability and the service provided..
Accessibility of web sites is perhaps a more modern problem, because hand in hand with the decrease of accessibility (particularly through forced apps) has been coupled with a lack of phone contactable websites / services. If you could order your pizza by phoning at no cost and get a similar experience talking to someone as from the app, then this might n
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Proudrooster isn't saying to ignore people with disabilities, they are saying there is no guideline for what a website needs to do to serve those people properly. Are we talking Section 508? WCAG? (A? AA? AAA?). Also even if the CEOs were to "pluck our their eyes and try to use their own website" they'd still miss other accessibility features such as for those with poor/lacking motor skills.
Reversal on Access Now v. Southwest Airlines (Score:2)
The courts did not always side with the ADA covering the web. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. [wikipedia.org] was probably the basis of Domino's lawyers claiming the ADA only applies to brick and mortar locations. In the case of Southwest Airlines, they had been providing web only deals. Anyone that was blind could not take advantage of the deals because Southwest refused to put text ALT tags on the majority of images that made up the navigation of the website. Southwest Airlines indicated it would be too c
Re: (Score:3)
Iirc law firms are explicitely unofficially deputized to go find violations and get paid $10k or so per violation, no actual handicapped person needed.
One place I worked had to install a second handrail on their atrium staircase because the one was a few inches too low.
Just Need Another Circuit Court to Disagree (Score:2)
All that's needed here is for another Circuit Court of Appeals to disagree with the renownly liberal Ninth Circuit Court and SCOTUS will be compelled to take up the case due to the split decisions.
I'm sure that the next case will be filed in 5...4...3...2...1...
New TLD (Score:2)
Website or Pizza? (Score:2)
If he wanted a pizza, he could call and order one. Why is it important to be able to order a pizza online? Can blind people order from a drive through (without the help of a sighted person?) Should they be able to?
Re: (Score:2)
If he wanted a pizza, he could call and order one. Why is it important to be able to order a pizza online?
The website often offers lower prices than the phone service.
There's an app for that (Score:2)
In Canada we don't have usable AODA compliance (Score:5, Interesting)
As it stands now, we just gave up on supporting visual disabilities, and if you need to use a screen reader, just make sure it's not garbage. We routinely test with screen reading software, and it's hit or miss, but generally the better the software, the more accurate the outcome, so don't buy garbage, and you'll generally be okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you elaborate on this unsolvable case?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we email and called the AODA and they couldn't tell us what to do, ending that call just as confused as we were. Our standards are a mess, they're all over the map and even the people who author the standards will admit that's true.
Take solace in the fact that that's how feelgood regulations work all around the world. These politicians come up with vague regulations that sound "good" but have no idea how someone would follow them. They don't care about the real world. It's all about the cause.
When the GDPR was about to come into effect in the EU businesses had no idea how to comply. They asked lawyers who couldn't give any definitive answers either. So they went to government agencies who had no idea either and just said that would ha
All well and good, but... (Score:2)
Define accessible.
And there are plenty more disabilities that could be helped by some degree of accessibility planning etc.
ADA section 508 (Score:2)
Prior case law points to the answer: Government accessibility regulations became the legal definition quite a while ago so then they apply to you as well - until a court accepts something else that is all you have to be sure can be used to argue you are accessible.
Fuzzville (Score:3)
The problem is that there are no clear-cut standards. Existing recommendations are based off of weird contradictory armchair theories that have lots of holes if you stop to think about them in practice.
Sure, you could make a really basic website that will pass ADA muster, but Dilbertian PHB's always want to decorate it with fancy shit to pump their egos and ask IT to find a way for their eye-candy to "fit ADA guidelines". Thus, you have to stretch the limits, and the limits are fuzzy.
They ask why "the rules" are fuzzy, but don't have the attention span to listen to or read the long explanation; or think you are bullshitting them. "Git outta my pointy hair and just do it!"
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, not sorry (Score:2)
Sorry but I don't care if my website isn't accessible to blind people. Just use a screen reader or something
Re: (Score:2)
Does your website offer good or services to the public? If so, you have no right to bitch if you get sued. If you don't get sued then you're not important enough to notice and don't matter anyway.
That's what you get, for making web apps. (Score:2)
CSS has a full set of properties for audio browsers.
HTML explicitely states that you should never write it while relying on any form of presentation!
I always tested my sites in Lynx/Links2/eLinks.
Yet all the morons kept making sites that became completely useless, once you removed their CSS or altered the default CSS of the browser.
Then, even worse, it became all canvases and scripts and other things that aren't even using HTML anymore.
I always wondered how blind people even get by with that crap. Let alone
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
The Supreme Court (Score:2)
Supreme Court allows blind to sue...
The blind leading the blind.
The SCOTUS is the least blind-friendly or tech-friendly organization in existence.
(Hint: check out THEIR OWN webpage).
Maybe some blind people should sue them.
E
What's next? (Score:2)
The NBA and NFL have to hire blind Quarterbacks and Wheelchair-bound linebackers?
do I really care? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How often do you call to order pizza? The website is more convenient. This is not as stupid a request as you make it seem to be. It's also quite trivial to implement. Web standards already exist for this. Image tags already include an option for a text description if the image is blocked. This isn't about forcing you to make your shitty blog ADA compliant. It's about making a business follow the laws just like having wheelchair ramps, ADA-compliant doors, handicapped parking spaces, etc. It's the co
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you call to order pizza?
100% of the time that I order pizza.
Seems to me that it would, in fact, be a very rare thing for anyone to order a pizza via a web page. Its never even occurred to me that it might even be an option, and a quick check of the 4 different pizza establishments I've ordered a pizza from in the past several years indicates that, IN FACT, DIPSHIT, it is not an option.
So now I have to wonder what the fuck you are talking about. Whatever it is its not normal, so you taking an extreme and rare case, and pretend
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that it would, in fact, be a very rare thing for anyone to order a pizza via a web page. Its never even occurred to me that it might even be an option
Dude, we're not even on your lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
I also have never ordered a pizza online. Are there any good pizzerias that do this? Where I live I can't even call to order a pizza. I have to order it in person and wait for it.
Re: (Score:3)
How often do you call to order pizza? The website is more convenient.
For someone that can see and read the web page I would agree. For someone that cannot I have my doubts.
I've ordered pizza on the web and by phone. The website is sometimes more convenient, because I'm in no hurry and I don't know what I want. Sometimes I just need to see what the thing is to know if I want it.
If I don't much care what I want, or I'm in a hurry, then it's easy to just call them up. I usually start off with how many people need to be fed, then go to a rough description of what I want, the
offer online only deals to phone orders is an fast (Score:2)
offer online only deals to phone orders is an fast fix.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it works. You choose your own computer braille system and the software for it can read the standard HTML tags on things like images.
It's like how the company has to provide a wheelchair ramp, but it's up to you to provide the wheelchair.
Re: (Score:2)
You got elbows? Lucky bastard! I don't even got a body!
Can a vampire sue the Mirror Factory?
It seems so.
Re: (Score:2)
... how this might apply to Pornhub?
Then post a link to a video demonstration?
Imagine porn on the radio (Score:2)
I guess blind users could request that Pornhub create a play-by-play audio track for each video on the service. Imagine how porn would be formatted for [subscription] radio.
Books for the Blind (Score:3)
Such a suit would not be necessary. The Books for the Blind program [wikipedia.org], sponsored by the Library of Congress, uses an exception to U.S. copyright (17 USC 121) to reproduce books in specialized formats used by people with disabilities. It began with Braille books, then specialized vinyl records, then specialized audio cassettes, and now DRM audio book formats.
No, HTML is *explicitely* presentation agnostic! (Score:2)
It is already braille screen reader compatible!
We used to say: If you think about how it *looks* while writing HTML, *you're doing it wrong*!
For pure HTML, only semantics and structure matter.
Re: Terrible Poster Child (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's all you did then your website is NOT accessible.
Test it yourself. I did, and it's accessible, because it's standards-compliant.
The wcag guidelines run to hundreds of pages and cover all disabilities, not just blindness.
Yeah, you also have to not prevent people from scaling text, and have alt tags describing all your images. Oh noes11!!1!1! Those are things that every responsible web designer does.