Court rules grocery store's inaccessible website isn't an ADA violation:
A federal appeals court struck a significant blow against disability rights this week when it ruled that a Florida grocery store's inaccessible website did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ruling contradicts a 2019 decision by a different appeals court holding that Domino's did violate the ADA when it failed to make its app accessible to blind people.
[...] Winn-Dixie is a grocery store chain with locations across the American South. Juan Carlos Gil is a blind Florida man who patronized Winn-Dixie stores in the Miami area for about 15 years.
A few years ago, Gil learned that the store offered customers the ability to fill prescriptions online. Ordering online saves customers time because prescriptions are ready when the customer arrives. Gill also preferred to order prescriptions online because it offered greater privacy. In court, he testified that ordering in person as a blind man made him "uncomfortable because he did not know who else was nearby listening" as he told the pharmacist his order.
Unfortunately, the Winn-Dixie website was incompatible with the screen-reading software Gil used to surf the web, rendering it effectively useless to him. Incensed, Gil stopped patronizing Winn-Dixie and filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gil argued that the inaccessible design of the Winn-Dixie website discriminated against blind customers like him because it forced them to order prescriptions in person, a process that is slower and offers less privacy.
In his lawsuit, Gil also said he couldn't access two other features of the Winn-Dixie website: a store locator function and the ability to clip digital coupons and automatically apply them at the register with his loyalty card.
[...] The ruling runs directly contrary to a 2019 decision by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, which covers California and several other Western states. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Domino's had violated the ADA by failing to make its online ordering system accessible to blind customers. Plaintiff Guillermo Robles claimed that this violated his rights under the ADA, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.
[...] Hence, while the website itself might not be a place of public accommodation, an inaccessible website impedes blind customers' access to the Domino's restaurant—which clearly is such a place.
This situation—where two different appeals courts take divergent positions on the same legal question—is known as a circuit split. For now, businesses in Western states will be required to follow the Ninth Circuit's broad interpretation of the ADA and make their websites accessible. Meanwhile, businesses in the three Eleventh Circuit states—Alabama, Georgia, and Florida—won't have to worry as much about making their websites ADA compliant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 13 2021, @08:29AM (31 children)
ADA had good intentions, and you know what they say: "The road to hell..." and all that.
The thing is: if someone is disabled, there may be some things they cannot do. Back when I lived in Boston, around the time the dinosaurs roamed the earth, I enjoyed going to a tiny restaurant that was only reachable by a long, winding stairway. Today, with the ADA? Impossible. Most likely they will not have been able to afford a better location, so they probably went out of business. Yet: there are other restaurants that are accessible - why should every restaurant have to be ADA compliant? Remember the kerfuffle over swimming pool lifts, where every single pool was supposed to be equipped? It's not enough that accessible pools exist - every pool must be accessible! Again, why?
It's the same for websites. If making a website accessible is relatively easy - mainly static content, etc. - then do it. If a website is more interactive, supporting screen readers becomes increasingly difficult. If the costs are too high, why should the website owner be responsible for paying them? Some websites will be inaccessible to screen readers, and that's ok (or should be).
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RamiK on Tuesday April 13 2021, @09:04AM (14 children)
Because cheaper location = cheaper overhead = cheaper prices = market forces favoring inaccessible businesses while penalizing and driving out accessible businesses.
Unlike the location problem which at least has real world physical limitation and considerations especially in old historical cities, the web is an entirely man-made construct to deliver text and the price point of accessible designs and technologies is entirely artificial so it's absolutely inexcusable for the industry as a whole to promote inaccessible designs and technologies as a "cheaper" alternative.
This is even worse than opposing seat belts laws: At least seat belts have some material and testing costs to them so when a company decides to market them as "premium" it really is a question of BoM. Software doesn't work like that. The development costs reflect the industry standards and little else. If the industry defaulted on accessible tech, it would have been costlier to develop an inaccessible site. We see this with delivery of text for ePublishers where the premium is to deliver watermarked images and per-generated text-to-speech as a form of DRM and it's many MANY times more costly than just deliver simple text even if you eliminate the bandwidth costs and only consider the compute and storage overhead.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @10:37AM (5 children)
What about free market? I can choose to run my business as I want, within related guidelines. In the case of a restaurant, there are food safety regulations - other than that, get off their back. Where you eat is a choice.
Otherwise what do we get next? Some person with a fear of heights will be suing a skydiving company because they did not cater for their "disability"?
As for websites - since simple HTML back in the dinosaur age, there are now so many layers you have to have a team of devs to create one that caters for most of the crazy stuff. EU's cookie laws, blind access, deaf access, armless access, colourblind access. And most websites refuse to even load now without some massive framework, ad injection and tracking spyware. My website? If you can't access it because whatever, tough. Go elsewhere - free market.
It seems the litigant was happy to use the business for 15 years but suddenly was short of cash so sued them. Snowflake loser.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:21PM (4 children)
>What about free market?
It's an economist's fantasy that has never existed in the history of the world. You'll have to settle for a market economy. Either heavily regulated, or dominated by a few monopolists.
> I can choose to run my business as I want, within related guidelines.
Yes you can. And one of those guidelines is that you must be handicap accessible. Otherwise basically nobody at all would support handicapped access. Even just putting a ramp on the sidewalk so wheelchairs can get out of the parking lot is more expensive than a normal curb, and it's a rare store that will have enough wheelchair-bound potential customers to be worth caring about.
>As for websites - since simple HTML back in the dinosaur age, there are now so many layers you have to have a team of devs to create one that caters for most of the crazy stuff. .......
All of that stuff is natively supported in plain, simple HTML. If it's not supported in something more complicated, it's because they chose not to support it when when building the more complicated stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @04:05PM (3 children)
A functionally free market is one in which market participants are at liberty to make their own choices, as opposed to a command economy in which choices are imposed by a planning structure of some sort. This does not preclude regulation or enforcement of things like contract law or fair trading rules either.
Describing it as a fantasy of economists is to turn your back on pretty much the whole of the twentieth century's work on economics.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday April 13 2021, @05:35PM (2 children)
No, that's just a market economy.
A functionally free market is one where no individual buyer or seller, nor any consortium of them, holds enough market power to be able to unilaterally influence the market price of goods.
Without that, it's a captive market which no longer adheres to the assumptions made about a free market, and is unlikely to deliver the benefits normally ascribed to them.
A free market is an economist model much akin to a physicist's spherical cow in a vacuum. It's a useful simplification for some classes of thought experiments, but is not directly relevant to the real world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @05:46PM (1 child)
Antitrust/scale management regulations are a normal part of regulation. The 19th century called, and it wants its conception of normal market regulation back. In particular, if you preclude the very notion of a consortium agreeing to collective action, you run into the problem of how a consortium could be constituted, how they'd be organised and how to identify them. In principle, any free market's participants could collude to shove the market around by combining their numbers to corner a market - labour activists call it collective bargaining and solidarity.
If you're going to define it out of existence, then sure, no such thing exists but back in the real world where real people talk about real economies, a free market comes down to participants freely engaging in offer/acceptance exchanges based on mutually agreeable terms.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday April 13 2021, @06:30PM
> In principle, any free market's participants could collude to shove the market around by combining their numbers to corner a market - labour activists call it collective bargaining and solidarity.
Yes, they could - at which point it would stop being a free market.
In practice, some commodity markets are diversified enough to approximate a free market; however, most products are not remotely diversified enough - I believe I've heard that once on actor (or group) corners just 10% of a market, that market will no longer behave as a free market.
> free market comes down to participants freely engaging in offer/acceptance exchanges based on mutually agreeable terms.
Again - that's true of *any* market, not just a free market. The alternative is something like the command economy you mention, which is NOT market-based.
All of the benefits ascribed to a free market are not magically present in just any market-based economy, only in a free market where no individual or group has enough power to influence market prices. Which is to say, they are not especially relevant to any real market, aside from the most diversified commodities.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:11AM (7 children)
Your math don't work. The cheaper location is cheaper for a reason and that reason almost certainly directly affects a business's ability to compete in the market.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday April 13 2021, @12:27PM (6 children)
Because it had 3 stair steps and/or narrow entry and/or only standing toilets and/or no fire hydrants and/or no emergency exit...
Regardless, accessibility and safety overheads tend to overlap with each other in all fields so I'd rather leave the tradeoffs to the professionals. When it comes to software, I think we both know the less accessible you are, the more crap you have under the hood ready to break down while exposing your users' data one way or another. I can think of why the same would be right for construction (narrow entry limits access for fire workers and evacuation... Steps with rails will end up with someone slipping and falling on a cold day...) so if I had to guess, they're all mostly tweaks to already existing safety regs that just don't add anything meaningful to the construction costs.
Of course, if you know any long study by some professional construction engineer make a wide argument against such regs, I'd be happy to read the abstract... Otherwise, on the software side, I'm with the accessibility people.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 13 2021, @12:34PM (5 children)
I expect most of that is down to either physical limitations and/or because it's an old building and nobody gave a shit at the time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by RamiK on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:55PM (4 children)
The ADA has specific exceptions for existing and historic properties as well as cost caps on how much the whole thing should cost: https://www.structuremag.org/?p=7540 [structuremag.org] https://www.burnhamnationwide.com/final-review-blog/a-misunderstood-area-of-ada-compliance-existing-facilities [burnhamnationwide.com]
Look, this is details that we shouldn't go into since we're not in construction. We know tech. We know it's entirely justifiable to demand accessibility out of web crap. But when it comes to this technical stuff... I mean, it's one thing to talk about military spending where it's all bullshit and there's no science to be had. But to construction engineers we must sound like a couple of MBAs arguing on Apple vs. Samsung... Aha now I feel bad for the construction people having to read through this :/
compiling...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:34PM (2 children)
It doesn't really ensure that people won't sue and the ADA lacks any provision to require that the injured party notify the business prior to filing suit so that the violation can be fixed. In some cases, the cases are brought for minutia that are of minimal impact to anybody. A sink that's an inch too high is not likely to be an impediment to anybody as the standard is low enough to deal with eventualities like that.
And even if what the business is doing is legal, there's no guarantee that the business isn't going to be stuck paying legal fees just to determine that's the case and deal with it. Overall, the ADA was a massive step in the right direction, it's just a shame that there's been so little interest in fixing and improving it. Trying to extend a law written to deal with real world facilities to online ones is not something that's just going to happen without a lot of unnecessary pain for all those that are involved.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Wednesday April 14 2021, @02:24AM (1 child)
There is a shyster in Los Angeles who partnered with a guy in a wheelchair to find non-compliant local businesses and sue them. The fact that the businesses were grandfathered and not *required* to comply was irrelevant; these crooks used the ADA as a bludgeon to extract money, since small businesses will usually settle rather than fight it in court. Last I heard (this was about 15 years ago) these two crooks were making a nice seven-figure income.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 14 2021, @11:51AM
And, wait, let me guess...because regulation can be abused, allllll regulation is bad, and to hell with discrimination protections because these specific shitheels gamed the system. Right? Did I fill out my bingo card?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 14 2021, @04:39AM
No, it's not. Unless you just have developer time and money to burn, it is a fairly significant hardship.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 13 2021, @10:55AM (11 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:25PM (1 child)
Why do you go to a place where the staff smoke? You are not following your own free market rules.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 14 2021, @08:35AM
Do you understand the concept that different pubs might stock different beers, and that different beers might actually be fundamentally different, and that a beer drinker might actually care about which particular beer he drinks?
Nope? Well, I hope you enjoy your bowl of soylent grey, or whatever single thing you have chosen to eat for the rest of your life, which is the only behavior pattern logically consistent with such a blinkered worldview.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 13 2021, @03:06PM (4 children)
Market forces have proven themselves to be terrible arbiters who shall be exposed to carcinogens in order to put food on the table.
Also, is every single employee there a smoker? Even if they are a smoker, is there no difference between five minutes of exposure and a 10 hour shift's worth?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 13 2021, @03:28PM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 13 2021, @03:29PM (2 children)
Yes, every single member of staff is a smoker in the specific case of my "local".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 14 2021, @05:13AM (1 child)
Then find another local?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 14 2021, @08:40AM
Beer selection, music - live and piped, food, company, comfort, and even staff; there's a whole lot more which is fundamentally way more important than "do the staff smoke?"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @04:10PM (1 child)
Nah, just charge more for "smoking permitted" licenses. Crank up the price till the ratio is in the ballpark you want.
This way you don't miss out on yet another opportunity to make more money from smokers...
That's why I'm against bans on such stuff. You miss out on tax/license revenue. I'm evil like that... ;)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 14 2021, @08:42AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:37PM (1 child)
Go to better bars. Since they banned smoking in most places here roughly 15 years ago, I have never noticed any negative impact on service that could be attributed to smoking. Sure, there are still smokers, but I've not once had to wait for service because the staff were outside smoking. It's the incompetent managers of those bars, not the regulation that caused that problem and it could readily be fixed by a few pink slips for not being on the job while on the clock. I realize that things work differently in the UK than the US, but surely when employees are clocked in, they're expected to actually work at their primary role.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 14 2021, @08:48AM
If you think:
Has one shitty macro lager poured through dirty pipes, and the loos stink up one end of the place, but the staff doesn't smoke
is better than:
has 700 beers of all styles from around the world, and has really late opening hours and comfy sofas, but the staff smoke
then you have nothing more of interest to me to contribute to this conversation.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Tuesday April 13 2021, @02:26PM
Imagine if the web was open and presented information in a technology-agnostic way that could be manipulated and displayed as you wished. Imagine if javascript didn't exist. Imagine if all the fancy BS that marketing wants would incur a server-side cost instead of requiring 8-core 4GHz and 2TB of customer's RAM to render their shit?
This guy's random screen-reader software might have actually worked in this world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @03:03PM (2 children)
Yup, you are good southerner... Separate but equal is just fine.
But it is not. The pool on my block does not have lift, but the one across time town does. So I got to get a UBER to take me there and back. Waste of gas, waste of time. AND I ALREADY LIVE NEXT TO POOL.
Same of websites that are FRONT DOORS to the business on my block or immediate area.
So you truly understand. You are now blind for 1 month. Find you r way to work, food, swimming. No peeking!
dummy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @03:41PM (1 child)
Hi! I'm Clippy!
I see you want to open a business, let me help!
I know, capital is scarce and you don't have any customers yet, but first you must ensure that your adventure travel company is fully accessible to the disabled, so will your hiking tour through the Hindu Kush be fully available to the morbidly obese, blind, diabetic, wheelchair-bound and those with chronic kidney disease? Will you have translation services available for the deaf, provide support for service animals, and medical support for those with congestive heart failure or liver disease?
No?
Then obviously you're a monster and your business shouldn't exist. Report filed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @10:28PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @09:11AM (11 children)
Undoubtedly because the website used so much react/node/angular based javascript that it is nigh unrenderable by even Firefox and Chrome, and actually unrenderable by most browsers that still worked 10 years ago. What hope does a niche product like a screen-reader have in the face of such reckless destruction?
The web is dying. Web developers have killed it. Blind people being no longer able to read it, as they could in 1991, is just a symptom of the general decay. It won't be long before you are unable to read it. Hell, can you read most sites anymore?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @09:31AM (7 children)
For me, this site is the only one that still works with my ten year old system.
I gave up on the internet stock trading I used to do because the hardware and internet costs to maintain compatibility with their trading website was for me economically not viable.
Many websites have simply become analogous to a physical brick and mortar business with a stuck front door and something really sticky all over the floor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @10:25AM (1 child)
I sort of hate to say it, but if the relatively low economic cost of upgrading every few years kept you from trading stocks, it sounds like you are better off not actively trading.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 13 2021, @10:58AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:18AM (4 children)
I'd like to be able to take credit for that but the fact of the matter is it ain't down to our love for our fellow man. Mostly it's because we hate fancy interwebs bullshit that's in the vast majority of pages. If we had to make a prioritization choice on something that negatively impacted 95% of our users or one that negatively impacted 5%, the 5% issue is going to get lower priority on our dev time pretty much always.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:26PM (1 child)
Except most of the complicated bling harms the 95% as well, and exists primarily for the ego-stroking and/or data-harvesting pleasure of the developers and/or executives.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 14 2021, @04:40AM
I thought it existed to keep javascript "programmers" out of the important stuff.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:42PM (1 child)
This kind of thinking is a major part of why the ADA was passed in the first place. You're only required to provide reasonable accommodations. It's not like they're requiring that the doors of the establishment be 6 feet wide with a fork lift so that morbidly-obese, land-whales can come into the restaurant. In most cases, having a door that's the appropriate width and some method of getting wheelchairs into the restaurant isn't typically that big of a deal. It's mostly older buildings which may well qualify for an exemption that don't. Most newer buildings will be required to have those things by code so that business owners don't need to worry about it.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 14 2021, @04:44AM
You have the time and desire to write up the pull requests? Go for it. I have things that matter to a lot more people that need doing. And I don't see anyone beating down the door to take any of the work off my plate at the moment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by driverless on Tuesday April 13 2021, @10:01AM (2 children)
This. Exactly this. Every web developer who's built web sites like this should be forced to spend an eternity in hell accessing the web site they've created... through a screen reader. For example as one of the tortures there, for Amazon's web site developers, tell them they can buy an escape pass out of hell provided they order it through the Amazon web site accessed only via a screen reader.
(Score: 2, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:00AM
So much +1 from this direction.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:44PM
This is one of the things that a sanely set up site using XML and appropriate processors for visual navigation and screen reader would be great for. Default into screen reading mode, unless the browser asks for the regular sighted version.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @12:39PM
Oh well.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:19PM (2 children)
I would guess that store chains get such web functionality made by third party companies. And I am surprised that professional web developers ignore accessibility. Unless the web developers are low-paid Indians managed by ignorant baboons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:44PM (1 child)
The commonly used web frameworks give no consideration to accessibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 14 2021, @01:00PM
Well, while it is generally a challenge, there are ways to go if someone wants to:
The state of accessible web UI frameworks [darekkay.com]
Lessons learned building an accessible web application framework [cerner.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @02:55PM
OK, their website sucks because they sucked the AJAX pipe too long. Got it.
This person was not refused access or service - he just had to go through another process and Winn-Dixie was happy to give him his stuff and take his money.
What he complained about was the equivalent of being told that to get into the fancy restaurant in his wheelchair would require him using the wheelchair ramp, rather than by the stairway. It's as if he wanted some new kind of stairway that were somehow wheelchair accessible.
If Winn-Dixie had said something like: "Working eyes or GTFO!" or "All orders must pass through our javascrippled system!" or something like that, then there would not have been reasonable access, but that's not what happened here.
Asking for subtitles in movies: plausible. Asking for talkies to be banned because deaf people can't take in the subtle intonations of Tom Cruise's voice: idiotic.
(And yes, before the outrage brigade start wetting themselves and weeping great hand-wringing tears, I am disabled, and other people in my family have other disabilities, I'm well aware of how tragically hard this whole thing is and how we're oppressed by the demented shitlords that run our lives for their own amusement. Go get your tragedy-porn elsewhere, I don't give a fuck.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @04:34PM
All of these functions seem like they would be just as available by phone as by the website, with the possible exception of the coupons. I know for a fact that you can order any pizza by phone from Domino's, and while I don't live in a region served by Winn-Dixie, I've called in prescriptions to anywhere I've gotten them filled. The phone would provide the same privacy benefit as well.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 13 2021, @10:10PM
TFS completely lays out Gil's argument as if that exists in a total vacuum and then takes a detour through a foreign jurisdiction to discus Robles. What argument did Win Dixie put up? Obviously Win Dixie won, so it probably did more than file Dilbert cartoons as briefs and it is unlikely its attorneys played mine sweeper during oral arguments and just said "whatever dude" when their time came. We do get 12 words as part of a sentence regarding "public accommodations" in the Robles case, but what specifically does that term mean? Did Win Dixie even argue this? Is this why the court ruled in Win Dixie's favor? Was it some other basis, or a combination of them, that tipped the balance in favor of Win Dixie.
Maybe if we heard Win Dixie's argument or at least the court's explanation why it ruled in favor of Defendant, we might better understand this decision. Perhaps the court was balancing difficult competing interests. Perhaps it was a sold-out judge. Who knows though -- until someone digs up the decision and finishes T(woefully inadequate)FS, it is literally impossible to evaluate whether the outcome is logical or not.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday April 13 2021, @10:24PM (2 children)
This court decided that the ADA applies to physical spaces and not to a website. The ninth circuit decided otherwise.
But how would a website even be judged to be accessible or not? No matter how terrible the website is, it wouldn't be impossible for a screen reader to be created that did work with it (at least until the next website update that breaks everything). Did the plaintiff try every screen reader known to man and they all failed? Or did he only try it on the screen reader that his cousin made once upon a time for Internet Explorer 3.0?
It's hard to see how someone could argue that a website failed to meet a standard when a million monkeys with a million keyboards IS the only standard.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:07PM
Close eyes, make successful purchase.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:50PM
There are standards out there for how to build a website that will work with a screenreader or other accessibility software. That's been the case for decades. But, people choose to do things that break screen readers without really providing anything useful to people who can read the screen just fine anyways. It's been ages since I created any websites, but IIRC, using bold tags was discouraged because it wouldn't properly go through a screen reader, but using strong would. Both of them at the time would look the same, but for whatever reason one would work with the screen reader and the other wouldn't. Similarly, tables create huge problems for screen readers as there are various ways in which the same table can be read depending upon what you want to do with it. A screen reader wouldn't know how.
It shouldn't be the responsibility of the screen reader maker to figure out all the janky ways that a commercial website can be created in order to read it correctly. The professionals putting up the site should be able to follow the best practices for writing a site that screen readers can deal with. It's not typically that big of a deal for common formats of website.