Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
31
↓
Dominos wants the Supreme Court to say websites don't have to be accessible - CNBC (cnbc.com)
submitted by Itsthejoker
KingWithoutClothes 13 points 4y ago
I'm appalled by the fact that people in this thread say they're against mandatory accessibility. Blind and VI people kissing corporate America's ass while at the same time ramming a dagger in their own back. Wow. This is sad. And regarding the two frequently uttered arguments in relation to this:
- No, Domino's won't lose a ton of customers because frankly, nobody will give a shit. Maybe some non-disabled people will hear about it in the news and not order from Domino's for a month because they're shocked. After that, everything goes back to normal. It's like that every single time with these business scandals. People said Facebook would go bankrupt when it came out that they're selling their users' personal data to external companies without the users' knowledge or consent. Well?! Nothing's happened. I've asked my friends who use Facebook and they all say the same: "yeah I know it kinda sucks but y'know, being on Facebook is cool anyway." It will be exactly the same with Domino's. Anyone who thinks differently is hopelessly naive.
- And regarding the argument that it's "too much work" for some companies to provide an accessible website: that's super lame. First of all, it's not even that much work. And secondly, building a wheelchair ramp in front of your store is also extra work but guess what, people in wheelchairs have a right to go shopping too.
Seriously, I don't get it. Usually on this sub everyone is saying how the blind have right and these rights should be protected but now everyone is feeling so bad for those poor, poor corporations.
Either way, with the current Supreme Court the case won't be successful anyway.
- No, Domino's won't lose a ton of customers because frankly, nobody will give a shit. Maybe some non-disabled people will hear about it in the news and not order from Domino's for a month because they're shocked. After that, everything goes back to normal. It's like that every single time with these business scandals. People said Facebook would go bankrupt when it came out that they're selling their users' personal data to external companies without the users' knowledge or consent. Well?! Nothing's happened. I've asked my friends who use Facebook and they all say the same: "yeah I know it kinda sucks but y'know, being on Facebook is cool anyway." It will be exactly the same with Domino's. Anyone who thinks differently is hopelessly naive.
- And regarding the argument that it's "too much work" for some companies to provide an accessible website: that's super lame. First of all, it's not even that much work. And secondly, building a wheelchair ramp in front of your store is also extra work but guess what, people in wheelchairs have a right to go shopping too.
Seriously, I don't get it. Usually on this sub everyone is saying how the blind have right and these rights should be protected but now everyone is feeling so bad for those poor, poor corporations.
Either way, with the current Supreme Court the case won't be successful anyway.
[deleted] 1 points 4y ago
[deleted]
jouleheretolearn 11 points 4y ago
I get why they dont want the requirement, but it's seems smarter business move to make your website accessible. The more people who can order their food and all. . . . I'm also not a Domino's fan so meh, lol.
Laser_Lens_4 9 points 4y ago
"but there are no good standards for accessibility" *casually ignores WCAG and a11y.
This isn't going to end well, is it? the case is going to get thrown out and nothing will change.
This isn't going to end well, is it? the case is going to get thrown out and nothing will change.
AnElusiveDreamer 8 points 4y ago
Ugh, another reason not to order from Dominos! I hope he wins. The law needs to be updated for true equality. They may just excuse the inaccessibility by saying he could call, but websites and aps are necessary for full participation in society nowadays. It’s in everyone’s best interest to make things accessible, and I wish more companies would understand that.
not_a_lizard-person 5 points 4y ago
Competent web developers are cheaper than lawyers. Chosing to not fix the website is a lose-lose for everyone involved... except the lawyers.
Ross2503 3 points 4y ago
Ah but they want me to read like 10 texts a week with offers that get more expensive every week
HDMILex 3 points 4y ago
I don't eat their pizza anyway
CloudyBeep 6 points 4y ago
But that doesn't mean that other blind people should be prevented from using the website.
HariboG 3 points 4y ago
"pizza"
Wolfpack3305 1 points 3y ago
But they realize they are gonna lose customers for this right?
AmAsabat 1 points 3y ago
Basically if you are out accessible then I’m not your customer
ravenshadow2013 1 points 4y ago
the simplest way to get a company, any company to change business practices is to boycott. Let the market decide who wins the war there are enough people out there who care about ADA compliance and rights for the disabled that a boycott would gain traction and they would have not choice but to adhere to the regulations
CloudyBeep 6 points 4y ago
I doubt this would have much effect with a pizza restaurant chain.
Californiaolivia 1 points 4y ago
Wow are they so going to lose customers. I think they have the right, but not many customers soon.
mashington14 0 points 4y ago
To be honest, I completely agree with them on this. I think the government should regulate accessibility in the internet, but the supreme court is not who should be doing it. It needs to be written as an amendment to the ADA.
CloudyBeep 4 points 4y ago
The DOJ was interested in updating the ADA a few years ago; the plans were cancelled. So unless you want to wait who-knows-how-many-years, this is the only way accessibility is going to be enforced.
tahtihaka -9 points 4y ago
I don't think websites should obligatorily be accessible.
Itsthejoker [OP] 14 points 4y ago
Strong words. As a web developer, I believe that they should and failure to do so is a result of poor planning. When designing for things like this, it's not that much extra effort to make something truly accessible. Why block a bunch of people from giving you money?
Why do you say that websites should not have these requirements?
Why do you say that websites should not have these requirements?
tahtihaka -4 points 4y ago
Your rhetorical question answers the other one; companies should be incited to be accessible in ways that don't involve legal sanctions, or any other form of punishment. Instead, there should be other incentives, such as what your question implies: smart business decision.
I, too, am a firm believer in doing things with professional pride, as contrasted with how things are usually done: hastily and with a "it'll do the job" attitude. However strongly I believe this, I can't find proper justification to legally bind web/app devs to have their end product meet some requirements. Many of those devs see themselves as artists, and I certainly do too. I could never support something which trades my having guaranteed access to websites and apps for artists' freedom. Artists or not, prescribing their end product would be interfering in how the devs or the companies employing them have chosen to conduct their business in a way that is not acceptable.
It, however, is higly encouragable.
If such requirements were imposed by law, what would they be, and who would decide that? I believe there are a number of groups with different disabilities or conditions, that would, at least subjectively, benefit from these requirements. How would the groups whose interests are noted in this hypothetical law be chosen? By whom? If the people deciding these arrive at a a set of requirements, how would the law be enforced? Would fining, for instance, be effective?
The people who need accessibility should unite and do everything in their power to make it as easy and as beneficial for companies and devs to take accessibility into account. Accessibility software engineers should do more effective software. Companies, however, should provide accessibility at their discretion.
I just don't understand, for a trivial sum of money, Dominos could have someone come up with an "it'll do the job" solution to provide accessibility for their services. Good press. Guess they'll first fight it in court so they can do it on their terms.
I, too, am a firm believer in doing things with professional pride, as contrasted with how things are usually done: hastily and with a "it'll do the job" attitude. However strongly I believe this, I can't find proper justification to legally bind web/app devs to have their end product meet some requirements. Many of those devs see themselves as artists, and I certainly do too. I could never support something which trades my having guaranteed access to websites and apps for artists' freedom. Artists or not, prescribing their end product would be interfering in how the devs or the companies employing them have chosen to conduct their business in a way that is not acceptable.
It, however, is higly encouragable.
If such requirements were imposed by law, what would they be, and who would decide that? I believe there are a number of groups with different disabilities or conditions, that would, at least subjectively, benefit from these requirements. How would the groups whose interests are noted in this hypothetical law be chosen? By whom? If the people deciding these arrive at a a set of requirements, how would the law be enforced? Would fining, for instance, be effective?
The people who need accessibility should unite and do everything in their power to make it as easy and as beneficial for companies and devs to take accessibility into account. Accessibility software engineers should do more effective software. Companies, however, should provide accessibility at their discretion.
I just don't understand, for a trivial sum of money, Dominos could have someone come up with an "it'll do the job" solution to provide accessibility for their services. Good press. Guess they'll first fight it in court so they can do it on their terms.
liquidDinner 6 points 4y ago
We tried to let "good for business" be the law of the land before and it failed consumers and workers alike. I don't know why anybody would expect it to be any different this time.
princesspooball 3 points 4y ago
So you're saying that businesses should be able to discriminate against blind/vip because of the poor "artists". That's really shitty.
>The people who need accessibility should unite and do everything in their power to make it as easy and as beneficial for companies and devs to take accessibility into account.
How? So the disabled consumer needs to figure this shit in there own?
>The people who need accessibility should unite and do everything in their power to make it as easy and as beneficial for companies and devs to take accessibility into account.
How? So the disabled consumer needs to figure this shit in there own?
tahtihaka 1 points 4y ago
No I am not. There *should* not be laws about this. Not doing something cannot be seen as discriminating action, being offended by others not taking one's own special needs into account is childish. It's not the artists' benefit that I have in my mind, it's visually impaired people's, actually.
Yes, the ones that the situation most concerns, should naturally be the ones driving the matter, so in that sense, on their own. However, there would of course be people supporting the matter for different reasons. Are you suggesting there aren't capable minds in the visually impaired community, who can contribute to the matter? Do you think we should be excused from the responsibility to see to it that our interests are appropriately taken into account, and our rights are respected? Why? Who would assume responsibility?
Yes, the ones that the situation most concerns, should naturally be the ones driving the matter, so in that sense, on their own. However, there would of course be people supporting the matter for different reasons. Are you suggesting there aren't capable minds in the visually impaired community, who can contribute to the matter? Do you think we should be excused from the responsibility to see to it that our interests are appropriately taken into account, and our rights are respected? Why? Who would assume responsibility?
edharristx 3 points 4y ago
Accessibility is all about Access. not physical impairments. adding depth and specificity to a website is different from meeting an arbitrary generic requirement that is the ADA. i wouldnt defend the ADA as much as encourage ppl to understand accessibility helps everyone.
tahtihaka -1 points 4y ago
Your last sentence, I believe, is the key
princesspooball 2 points 4y ago
Are you visually impaired?
tahtihaka 1 points 4y ago
I am.
CloudyBeep 6 points 4y ago
Do you use magnification or a screen reader? If magnification, then I believe you don't understand the obstacle that inaccessible websites pose for screen reader users. And how do you react when you can't do something because of an inaccessible website?
tahtihaka -3 points 4y ago
I don't need first-hand empirical experience to justify my position. I am not concerned with how a given website's inaccessibility manifests, it's irrelevant. If a website is 'inaccessible', I assume that means people with disabilities can not access the information within that website's pages.
You mean how do I react when I can't do something because I have a severe visual impairment? In either case, I accept the situation as is, and possibly start investigating workarounds or permanent solutions to the problem at hand. As a result, I can handle quite many tasks usually thought not to be visually impaired friendly.
You mean how do I react when I can't do something because I have a severe visual impairment? In either case, I accept the situation as is, and possibly start investigating workarounds or permanent solutions to the problem at hand. As a result, I can handle quite many tasks usually thought not to be visually impaired friendly.
brainotomy 2 points 4y ago
Why?
tahtihaka 1 points 4y ago
I've tried to elaborate this opinion's justifications answering /u/itsthejoker 's question. Please do ask if there's something I should explain further.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.