4 ms·

Then the Supreme Court is wrong (which isn't impossible, by the way). If I draw on my street with chalk, should I also be compelled to play a cassette on repeat

Then the Supreme Court is wrong (which isn't impossible, by the way). If I draw on my street with chalk, should I also be compelled to play a cassette on repeat outside my driveway describing what the picture is? This is absurd.

dexwiz 7y ago
Your street chalk is art, and isn’t required by anyone. But if you want to order online, then you increasing often have to interact with a website. Brick and mortar have employees that could help you, websites do not. The reverse of this situation would be telling people with wheelchairs that they should only shop online instead of expecting accessible stores.
- anonytrary 7y ago
  If modifying your shop to be accessible to everyone is not profitable for you, then you shouldn't be doing it. All this law does is require businesses to spend more money before they can operate. For now, this will hurt the economy more than it helps it.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    It's not profitable. It will never be profitable. The entire point of antidiscrimination legislation like the ADA is to make things that "profit" will not cause to happen, happen, because the alternative is to exclude people based on traits they cannot change.
cochne 7y ago
This would not apply to your street art. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." "a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden;" Are you arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act is wrong, or that making a website accessible is an undue burden? (while say, ramps for wheelchairs is not)
- anonytrary 7y ago
  Thank you for this snippet. The ADA is somewhat reasonable for having included the "undue burden" clause, however, it is probably an undue burden for a small online website to prove that supporting disabled users would be an undue burden. At the end of the day, this is just more red tape that will probably hurt small sites or deter them from being made.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    It's not an undue burden. Either don't break screen readers with javascript bullshit, or un-break them by having a sane tab order and present aria tags and image descriptions. Try it with keyboard navigation, listen to what it sounds like, and if it's functional, you pass. It's not that hard.
    - anonytrary 7y ago
      > Either don't break screen readers with javascript bullshit It's your site. You have the freedom to break your own property. This is apparently a contradiction. This addition seems to say that I can't break my own property if it means some people can't see it. How is this constitutional?
      - anonymousab 7y ago
        It's you're site that you can do with as you please right up until you're running a business and selling goods. Everything changes then, even without the ADA.
- CriticalCathed 7y ago
  I would say that yes -- sometimes. Often making a piece of software accessible to the blind for a small time developer or a small business owner is an undue burden. If I was forced to modify two of the apps I put up on the apple store to accommodate the blind I would just take them down because I could not justify the investment since it would require retooling the entire product and even re-imagining how it functions internally.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
People with disabilities need online access more than "normal" people so as to help make the rest of their lives work. Disabilities that make it difficult to get out and about and effectively go about their business in person can be hugely mitigated by options like online ordering, assuming the online experience is accessible. What is a mere convenience for many people is de facto the equivalent of a flying wheelchair for handicapped people -- when it actually works for them and isn't some new "fuck you" from the world.

dexwiz 7y ago

Your street chalk is art, and isn’t required by anyone. But if you want to order online, then you increasing often have to interact with a website. Brick and mortar have employees that could help you, websites do not. The reverse of this situation would be telling people with wheelchairs that they should only shop online instead of expecting accessible stores.

anonytrary 7y ago
If modifying your shop to be accessible to everyone is not profitable for you, then you shouldn't be doing it. All this law does is require businesses to spend more money before they can operate. For now, this will hurt the economy more than it helps it.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  It's not profitable. It will never be profitable. The entire point of antidiscrimination legislation like the ADA is to make things that "profit" will not cause to happen, happen, because the alternative is to exclude people based on traits they cannot change.

cochne 7y ago

This would not apply to your street art. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." "a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden;" Are you arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act is wrong, or that making a website accessible is an undue burden? (while say, ramps for wheelchairs is not)

anonytrary 7y ago
Thank you for this snippet. The ADA is somewhat reasonable for having included the "undue burden" clause, however, it is probably an undue burden for a small online website to prove that supporting disabled users would be an undue burden. At the end of the day, this is just more red tape that will probably hurt small sites or deter them from being made.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  It's not an undue burden. Either don't break screen readers with javascript bullshit, or un-break them by having a sane tab order and present aria tags and image descriptions. Try it with keyboard navigation, listen to what it sounds like, and if it's functional, you pass. It's not that hard.
  - anonytrary 7y ago
    > Either don't break screen readers with javascript bullshit It's your site. You have the freedom to break your own property. This is apparently a contradiction. This addition seems to say that I can't break my own property if it means some people can't see it. How is this constitutional?
    - anonymousab 7y ago
      It's you're site that you can do with as you please right up until you're running a business and selling goods. Everything changes then, even without the ADA.
CriticalCathed 7y ago
I would say that yes -- sometimes. Often making a piece of software accessible to the blind for a small time developer or a small business owner is an undue burden. If I was forced to modify two of the apps I put up on the apple store to accommodate the blind I would just take them down because I could not justify the investment since it would require retooling the entire product and even re-imagining how it functions internally.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

People with disabilities need online access more than "normal" people so as to help make the rest of their lives work. Disabilities that make it difficult to get out and about and effectively go about their business in person can be hugely mitigated by options like online ordering, assuming the online experience is accessible. What is a mere convenience for many people is de facto the equivalent of a flying wheelchair for handicapped people -- when it actually works for them and isn't some new "fuck you" from the world.