5 ms·

> ...Winn-Dixie’s website is heavily integrated with the company’s physical store locations, making it subject to the ADA. Heavily integrated?? GTFO. 10+ year

> ...Winn-Dixie’s website is heavily integrated with the company’s physical store locations, making it subject to the ADA. Heavily integrated?? GTFO. 10+ years of shopping at Winn-Dixie...until today, number of instances I've visited their website: precisely zero

cooper12 9y ago
Did you miss the part in the article and its title where it said the man suing is blind? For someone who can't see, a website actually is a better interface to "buy groceries and prescription drugs".
- mod 9y ago
  Did you miss the part where he's suing? Apparently it's not a better interface.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Maybe it is a better interface, but still not good enough?
tchaffee 9y ago
I've never used their bathroom. And I've never used their handicap bathroom either. So do away with both, right? Just because you haven't used it, is not proof of how little or how much the bathrooms or website are integrated with the physical store.
- metaphor 9y ago
  Perhaps you should actually visit their website and observe that it's nothing like your typical ecommerce front. The applicability of bathrooms, handicap stalls, parking ramps, etc. are predicated by the existence of B&M store fronts, which is their primary mode of consumer-facing business and drives the requirement of ADA compliance. To the point of integration, I challenge you to point out any mechanism that would prohibit me from completing an in-store transaction to the non-compliant disadvantage of the disabled without requiring a visit to their website. Since proof is the exclusive domain of mathematics, I can merely demonstrate with high certainty that 10+ years of shopping at Winn-Dixie--slightly biased as a tech-oriented customer with a professional engineering background--has yet to compel me otherwise.
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    > I challenge you to point out any mechanism that would prohibit me from completing an in-store transaction to the non-compliant disadvantage of the disabled without requiring a visit to their website. You can get coupons on their website. As a blind person, I would need to take extra steps in order to get those coupons. You can refill prescriptions online and save time, rather than waiting in the store. There you go. Time to stop moaning and get busy and start making the website ADA compliant. > has yet to compel me otherwise. Again, I've never used their handicap bathroom. Or any of their bathrooms. You having not used it is a very weak argument. Apparently it wouldn't even stand up in a court of law.
    - metaphor 9y ago
      You've completely missed the mark by failing to point out any mechanism that addresses a material disadvantage that would otherwise compel a customer to visit their website, visually impaired or not. Restated, point out a material disadvantage that I would directly suffer if I didn't visit their website...you'd have to establish that I must visit this website before you can make a valid argument. Failing to clearly establish this criterion begs to question what it means to be heavily integrated. > You can get coupons on their website. As a blind person, I would need to take extra steps in order to get those coupons. You mean the same coupons that are provided 1.) at the entrance of each store; 2.) posted on applicable product in every isle; 3.) stuffed in your snail mailbox; and 4.) spammed to your e-mail inbox. Your argument is asymptotic to a B&M store which doesn't have a website being legally required to create and maintain one in compliance with the ADA because electronic coupons are somehow universally equitable to the visually impaired...and yet here we are discussing litigation precisely because they're not. > You can refill prescriptions online and save time, rather than waiting in the store. So what you're saying is the time it takes for someone who is visually impaired to independently navigate and fill out a compliant web form is, in some qualitative sense of average, less than the time it would take for a pharmacy specialist without an equivalent disability to perform the same task. Oh how easily this digital generation has forgotten that a vanilla phone call is a valid method of achieving certain end goals. > Again, I've never used their handicap bathroom. Or any of their bathrooms. You having not used it is a very weak argument. Again, your counter-argument is a red herring and irrelevant: the existence of handicap bathroom provisions is a requirement of ADA compliance, which is predicated on and applicable to the existence of a B&M store front...it has nothing to do a website! It doesn't matter that you've never used the physical resource; there's clear and established requirements traceability to existing statute. To wit, what wasn't clearly delineated was website != public accommodation, which the court disagreed with based on the premise that the website in question was, by their definition, heavily integrated with the company's physical store locations. Accessibility of the website is not what's being questioned...I'm calling bullshit on the legal finding that this website was heavily integrated. The onus is on you to understand the logic.

cooper12 9y ago

Did you miss the part in the article and its title where it said the man suing is blind? For someone who can't see, a website actually is a better interface to "buy groceries and prescription drugs".

mod 9y ago
Did you miss the part where he's suing? Apparently it's not a better interface.
- yorwba 9y ago
  Maybe it is a better interface, but still not good enough?

tchaffee 9y ago

I've never used their bathroom. And I've never used their handicap bathroom either. So do away with both, right? Just because you haven't used it, is not proof of how little or how much the bathrooms or website are integrated with the physical store.

metaphor 9y ago
Perhaps you should actually visit their website and observe that it's nothing like your typical ecommerce front. The applicability of bathrooms, handicap stalls, parking ramps, etc. are predicated by the existence of B&M store fronts, which is their primary mode of consumer-facing business and drives the requirement of ADA compliance. To the point of integration, I challenge you to point out any mechanism that would prohibit me from completing an in-store transaction to the non-compliant disadvantage of the disabled without requiring a visit to their website. Since proof is the exclusive domain of mathematics, I can merely demonstrate with high certainty that 10+ years of shopping at Winn-Dixie--slightly biased as a tech-oriented customer with a professional engineering background--has yet to compel me otherwise.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  > I challenge you to point out any mechanism that would prohibit me from completing an in-store transaction to the non-compliant disadvantage of the disabled without requiring a visit to their website. You can get coupons on their website. As a blind person, I would need to take extra steps in order to get those coupons. You can refill prescriptions online and save time, rather than waiting in the store. There you go. Time to stop moaning and get busy and start making the website ADA compliant. > has yet to compel me otherwise. Again, I've never used their handicap bathroom. Or any of their bathrooms. You having not used it is a very weak argument. Apparently it wouldn't even stand up in a court of law.
  - metaphor 9y ago
    You've completely missed the mark by failing to point out any mechanism that addresses a material disadvantage that would otherwise compel a customer to visit their website, visually impaired or not. Restated, point out a material disadvantage that I would directly suffer if I didn't visit their website...you'd have to establish that I must visit this website before you can make a valid argument. Failing to clearly establish this criterion begs to question what it means to be heavily integrated. > You can get coupons on their website. As a blind person, I would need to take extra steps in order to get those coupons. You mean the same coupons that are provided 1.) at the entrance of each store; 2.) posted on applicable product in every isle; 3.) stuffed in your snail mailbox; and 4.) spammed to your e-mail inbox. Your argument is asymptotic to a B&M store which doesn't have a website being legally required to create and maintain one in compliance with the ADA because electronic coupons are somehow universally equitable to the visually impaired...and yet here we are discussing litigation precisely because they're not. > You can refill prescriptions online and save time, rather than waiting in the store. So what you're saying is the time it takes for someone who is visually impaired to independently navigate and fill out a compliant web form is, in some qualitative sense of average, less than the time it would take for a pharmacy specialist without an equivalent disability to perform the same task. Oh how easily this digital generation has forgotten that a vanilla phone call is a valid method of achieving certain end goals. > Again, I've never used their handicap bathroom. Or any of their bathrooms. You having not used it is a very weak argument. Again, your counter-argument is a red herring and irrelevant: the existence of handicap bathroom provisions is a requirement of ADA compliance, which is predicated on and applicable to the existence of a B&M store front...it has nothing to do a website! It doesn't matter that you've never used the physical resource; there's clear and established requirements traceability to existing statute. To wit, what wasn't clearly delineated was website != public accommodation, which the court disagreed with based on the premise that the website in question was, by their definition, heavily integrated with the company's physical store locations. Accessibility of the website is not what's being questioned...I'm calling bullshit on the legal finding that this website was heavily integrated. The onus is on you to understand the logic.