7 ms·

I see a lot of negativity in the comments. I imagine much of that is gut reactions of web developers hearing they need to do more work. As a web developer that

• notyourwork 7y ago
  The key is actually using a screen reader and better yet having someone with accessibly needs provide feedback. Following guidelines is great but usability is only great when you actually see how someone interacts with your site. Again though, it’s not that hard.
  • tyingq 7y ago
    On the other hand, there's probably two goals here. Making it work well, and avoiding a lawsuit. I imagine the latter involves a lot more work.
    • rhizome 7y ago
      There are two goals only if you don't do the first one. It's like saying the two biggest goals in owning a knife: not stabbing people and staying out of prison.
      • tyingq 7y ago
        Surely you don't think I meant something that simplistic. Of course the first goal is what matters. However, pretending there aren't people that will hunt for technicalities is naive.
    • freeone3000 7y ago
      In my experience, it's a lot LESS work. Fair or not, the people reviewing accessibility standards are likely not disabled, and the mere functioning of a website is enough to pass WCAG 2.0. It doesn't have to work well - all of the bits that make a website nice are at level AAA or are advisory, and the government's claim here is that Level A Sufficient would be enough, it just has to work.
      • tyingq 7y ago
        The people filing civil lawsuits generally are disabled, since they would be the only ones that could. A civil suit doesn't just get thrown out because you passed WCAG.
        • freeone3000 7y ago
          It doesn't, but it's evidence in your favor, much like meeting the physical accessibility requirements would be. If there's still a legitimate problem, of course you'd have to address it.
        • belltaco 7y ago
          Typically suits that do that without warnings or asking things to be changed are thrown out immediately. The plaintiff usually has to show that they tried getting it changed through normal channels before filing a lawsuit.
          • pakitan 7y ago
            The racket goes like this - a lawyer firm, specialized in this type of "work", finds a token blind person and sends you a letter to the tune of "On date such and such, our client visited your site and it wasn't accessible. Based on such and such precedent, we're not required to give you advance notice and can to sue you for $100K. However, we're reasonable people and we're willing to settle out of court for $10K, as long as you promise to fix your site under the supervision of an accessibility expert pointed by us". For small companies, even if you're in the right, the only thing that makes sense is to settle. Going to court is way too risky.
  • rimliu 7y ago
    And that's where you enter the woods. There is no "the screenreader". There are different screen readers, and each my interpret your site differently.
    • couchand 7y ago
      The same is true of mainstream browsers. Would you not bother testing in even a single browser just because there are too many options?
      • windsurfer 7y ago
        The differences between mainstream browsers are like different models of bicycles. The differences between screen readers are like all the varieties of two-wheeled vehicles, from segways to hoverboards to scooters.
• edoo 7y ago
  The issue is being forced at gunpoint to build services into your business.
  • aaomidi 7y ago
    This isn't an issue, its a feature. You live in a society so you plan around to serve that society. If you're not serving a large portion of your population then you're going to be forced to. This is no different than outlawing racial discrimination.
    • edoo 7y ago
      Completely incorrect. Denying someone service is completely different than them being unable to access your business because you can't afford to build out the accommodations. The constitution first and foremost guarantees freedom. Being forced to work at gunpoint is known as slavery.
      • thereare5lights 7y ago
        Better tell that to the people that maintain jury duty, or the Selective Service
      • lftl 7y ago
        So I take it you're opposed to the ADA in general?
        • wtallis 7y ago
          Probably also opposed to safety regulations like having a sprinkler system if your business is in a building over a certain size. After all, building those are way more expensive than wheelchair ramps, and sometimes even more expensive than web devs who know how to make an accessible page.
        • edoo 7y ago
          Absolutely except for federal buildings. The powers not expressly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states. At worse it should be a states rights issue with each state deciding their own way.
• mattnewton 7y ago
  It's actually really, really hard whenever you go off the beaten path with your UX. That's not really important though, what's important is that companies recognize this is needed and adequately staff it, and engineers are empowered to push back on designs that don't translate to screen readers well.
• kls 7y ago
  It's also one of the most easily outsourced tasks for a dev shop that does not want to do it in house. A accessibility dev, does not need to have a deep understanding of your business processes, you back end or your dev cycle. They really just need the front end assets in a manner that they can run and access to a source control repo to check in their changes for the mainline dev team to pull in.
• sgustard 7y ago
  But the Domino's site didn't have "labels on forms," it was a whole goofy animated game where you'd drag ingredients on a pizza to order. There's no way to make that accessible without building a whole separate web app. You can argue that goofy animated games are a dumb way to run a pizza website, and I can agree with you, but we all know the web is full of that kind of thing which is now waiting to be a lawsuit magnet.
  • chrisco255 7y ago
    I assume it's making REST calls behind the scenes. It's probably not too difficult to make a text based version of this system.
    • csande17 7y ago
      Indeed, they (sort of) already did; their mobile app includes a gimmicky "chatbot" feature. Admittedly, I don't think the chatbot can actually do everything the website can. But it's a start!
  • belltaco 7y ago
    Good.
  • 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
    Well, I don't know if that helps them from legal perspective, but I'm sure many disabled (and non) wouldn't mind if there was an alternative super simple text based version (but equal) on the web that they can lead their disabled customers on every platform needed.
  • progval 7y ago
    > But the Domino's site didn't have "labels on forms," it was a whole goofy animated game where you'd drag ingredients on a pizza to order. I've ordered a couple dozen of times on Domino's, mostly custom(ized) pizzas, and never seen a drag and drop on their website; possibly because I use their French website. Instead it's pressing buttons to add or remove ingredients. So it's possible and they already have the code to do it.
• esyir 7y ago
  This feels very much like a "tyranny of the minority" type situation though, where you have to bend backwards to aid a small subset of the population at the cost of a larger chunk of the same. There's probably a balance somewhere to be found. Not everything should have to be ported across.
  • snek 7y ago
    In 2010 Google determined that there were more people using the internet with accessibility features than Canadians. I can't find any new data, but I find it hard to assume that has gone down since. On top of that, making your website friendly to navigate with a keyboard doesn't just help people using accessibility features, lots of people use the keyboard to quickly navigate.
    • NotAnEconomist 7y ago
      Canada only accounts for 0.5% of the world population and about 1% of internet users (total Canadian population / total internet users) -- and I think it's telling that you didn't mention a bigger country, like the US which accounts for under 5% and under 10% respectively. Your point doesn't refute the GP: if we're spending a lot of expense to support fractional or even single-digit percentages of the population, it doesn't necessarily make sense.
    • esyir 7y ago
      We have ~4.77 billion people on the internet. Assuming all of Canada was blind, that's 0.77% of total users. Under most circumstances, < 1% is a small minority. I get that some level of accessibility is reasonable, but if you're expecting the same level of UI investment there for <1% of the population, I'd call that insane. Here, he can still call in and order the pizza.
      • snek 7y ago
        Making a website accessable isn't hard. there's a plethora of tooling available to help and most of it comes down to aria roles and color selection. It really is a bare minimum sort of task imo.
• Zarel 7y ago
  Honestly, all my sites are quite accessible and it was pretty easy for me, but I still feel nervous about this ruling. The problem isn't so much "how do I make my site accessible?" but "what counts as accessible in the eyes of the law?" Sure, you've passed an accessibility review from one person who is actually blind. But currently, what you need to do is pass an accessibility review from anyone who could ever potentially sue you over an ADA violation – many of whom don't even care, they just got roped into it by lawyers looking for easy money! For physical accessibility, we already have rules about exactly how steep a wheelchair ramp needs to be, etc. For website accessibility, we have nothing, just a very vague "has a user complained?" Supposedly the Obama administration promised in like 2012 that they would have actual standards for what counts as accessible, but that went nowhere and in like 2017 the Trump administration just canceled that entire project. And, like, if you've ever run a website, you know how vague "has a user complained?" is. My sighted users complain all the time, and it's not like I haven't expended years of effort making the experience good for them!
• krick 7y ago
  No, it would be silly for a web developer to complain, because they are paid for it. But, yeah, some additional work — non trivial amounts of it — must be done. By designers, developers, QA. And all of them are paid for it. So all this costs money. Non-trivial amounts of it. So, while it might be cumbersome, but doable for, let's say, Amazon, it could be a real problem for a new small business. Consider this: as a startup, you always wish you can satisfy all you customers. But you cannot. So you make sacrifices, trying to satisfy the customer base that brings to most money first. You always discriminate, even while US Supreme Court may not be able to see it. And there is no other way. So what this law really means: there still will be commercial web-sites, that are not accessible for some customers. But they can be sued for it. And while it won't drastically improve lives of many of disabled customers, it will improve lives of some lawyer firms, that can use blind people to sue businesses. This won't happen to everyone, but this is one more additional risk, that every entrepreneur will have to consider I always tend to support blind/deaf/etc people as much as I can, and I honestly care for them. But I don't feel I must be legally obligated to target my services to anyone. And I think this is a stupid law.
  • finnthehuman 7y ago
    >and I honestly care for them Caring happens with actions, not words.
  • non-entity 7y ago
    > So, while it might be cumbersome, but doable for, let's say, Amazon, it could be a real problem for a new small business. Not to mention even larger non-tech businesses often see tech as a cost center and probably don't want to pay to fix things until it's too late. Though, I wonder if this could be an interesting consulting angle. Sell yourself to businesses as someone who can help bring business's website to up standard