3 ms·

As much as I hate the current script-heavy web, is it really so hard to see why using the law to enforce aesthetic choices is a terrible idea?

by wyager 9y ago

Idontagree 9y ago
It worked once in medievalish Italy (not sure how you classify the period going from ~0-1800 A.D.). All houses had to be a certain color, for instance. I think it looked kinda cool, but obviously choice is often considered the greatest of all goods.
- wyager 9y ago
  Good point. Of course, again, we run into the practical difference between physical zoning restrictions and internet "zoning" restrictions. The real world, being equipped with a distance metric, has this messy problem where you are sometimes forced to be close to other people. I feel like this gives us (collectively) a bit of license to make demands of how nearby people use their physical property. On the other hand, there's no distance metric on the internet, and I'm not (in any sense) forced to live next to the winn-Dixie website.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    Specifically the decision in this case was that Winn-Dixie's website is heavily-integrated enough into their physical store locations enough that it's covered by the ADA.
XorNot 9y ago
Except it's not just an aesthetic choice - it's an accessibility problem. The point the OP is making is that it's not like this somehow disadvantages any abled person - it's probably an advantage.
- wyager 9y ago
  You can label it however you want; using the law as a bludgeon to force people into obeying arbitrary design policies like "you can't use JavaScript for this" is stupid for a huge number of reasons. An obvious problem is that there's no way to codify specific technology practices into law without severely damaging the ability of businesses to adapt to rapidly changing fields like the internet. "You must use these tags in your HTML pages"; OK, cool, what happens when we stop using HTML? The inevitable effect of this kind of legislation is that technology gets worse for everyone, rather than better for a small group.
  - wirt 9y ago
    After reading your replies elsewhere in this thread I just have to ask - why do you hate the idea of blind people being able to use websites so much?
  - robin_reala 9y ago
    Where did you get the idea that JS web apps can’t be accessible?
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    But that's not what it is! We build a react single page app which was certified AAA WCAG compliant (which, that is another complete bag of works) just by making sure we don't go out of our way to screw the markup at. In instances where we used non-default controls we just need to sprinkle some aria tags and it's fixed.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    That's generally not true. There is not really any specific encoding of technical requirements in accessibility laws – rather more along the lines of 'reasonable effort must be made' etc. I don't live in the US, but my understanding is that WCAG2.0 compliance is accepted as 'accessible'. WCAG doesn't say "you can't use Javascript" – it says "Here are the standards a site must meet to be accessible, and here are the methods you can use to satisfy them". Frankly it's a ridiculous objection. The burden of complying with WCAG is basically 'have good contrast and mark your forms and element up correctly'.
  - 9y ago
madeofpalk 9y ago
Letting people use the internet isn't an 'aesthetic choice'.

As much as I hate the current script-heavy web, is it really so hard to see why using the law to enforce aesthetic choices is a terrible idea?

by wyager 9y ago

As much as I hate the current script-heavy web, is it really so hard to see why using the law to enforce aesthetic choices is a terrible idea?

Idontagree 9y ago

It worked once in medievalish Italy (not sure how you classify the period going from ~0-1800 A.D.). All houses had to be a certain color, for instance. I think it looked kinda cool, but obviously choice is often considered the greatest of all goods.

wyager 9y ago
Good point. Of course, again, we run into the practical difference between physical zoning restrictions and internet "zoning" restrictions. The real world, being equipped with a distance metric, has this messy problem where you are sometimes forced to be close to other people. I feel like this gives us (collectively) a bit of license to make demands of how nearby people use their physical property. On the other hand, there's no distance metric on the internet, and I'm not (in any sense) forced to live next to the winn-Dixie website.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Specifically the decision in this case was that Winn-Dixie's website is heavily-integrated enough into their physical store locations enough that it's covered by the ADA.

XorNot 9y ago

Except it's not just an aesthetic choice - it's an accessibility problem. The point the OP is making is that it's not like this somehow disadvantages any abled person - it's probably an advantage.

wyager 9y ago
You can label it however you want; using the law as a bludgeon to force people into obeying arbitrary design policies like "you can't use JavaScript for this" is stupid for a huge number of reasons. An obvious problem is that there's no way to codify specific technology practices into law without severely damaging the ability of businesses to adapt to rapidly changing fields like the internet. "You must use these tags in your HTML pages"; OK, cool, what happens when we stop using HTML? The inevitable effect of this kind of legislation is that technology gets worse for everyone, rather than better for a small group.
- wirt 9y ago
  After reading your replies elsewhere in this thread I just have to ask - why do you hate the idea of blind people being able to use websites so much?
- robin_reala 9y ago
  Where did you get the idea that JS web apps can’t be accessible?
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  But that's not what it is! We build a react single page app which was certified AAA WCAG compliant (which, that is another complete bag of works) just by making sure we don't go out of our way to screw the markup at. In instances where we used non-default controls we just need to sprinkle some aria tags and it's fixed.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  That's generally not true. There is not really any specific encoding of technical requirements in accessibility laws – rather more along the lines of 'reasonable effort must be made' etc. I don't live in the US, but my understanding is that WCAG2.0 compliance is accepted as 'accessible'. WCAG doesn't say "you can't use Javascript" – it says "Here are the standards a site must meet to be accessible, and here are the methods you can use to satisfy them". Frankly it's a ridiculous objection. The burden of complying with WCAG is basically 'have good contrast and mark your forms and element up correctly'.
- 9y ago

madeofpalk 9y ago

Letting people use the internet isn't an 'aesthetic choice'.