6 ms·

This is a messy situation. On one hand, I totally get that the internet is a massively important portion of most people's lives, and people that need special ac

• dawnerd 6y ago
  I’ve been doing more accessible work and it’s a mess. Like oh you NEED to use JavaScript to make a pure css drop down menu accessible. Instead of putting the burden on web devs to create hacks around screen readers, how about the consumption software get better? There’s no reason it can’t detect a :hover and treat that as a JavaScript event flipping an aria tag.
  • nemo44x 6y ago
    Don’t the principles of progressive enhancement solve this? Build your site so that it can be used without js, etc and enhance features when you can detect the user is capable. Any type of menu should be able to display without scripting.
    • dawnerd 6y ago
      That’s exactly why I like using pure css when I can. Using JavaScript just to support aria tags is really backwards
  • iudqnolq 6y ago
    That's a massive hack that also won't work on mobile. Don't try and make real websites with real consequences if they fail like that. Either write websites that don't have the pretense of being fancy and don't use javascript (ie, your menu is just an always visible list of links) or use some javascript. Edit: I regret how rude this comment is.
    • dawnerd 6y ago
      Mobile has a flat menu, but thanks for assuming?
      • dang 6y ago
        Please don't respond with swipes, even if another comment was provocative or you feel it was. There's good information in your comments, but curious conversation (which is the goal here) also depends on how people conduct themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • dang 6y ago
      Can you please argue a little more respectfully? Comments like this and leading with "Wrong" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26762908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26762908) have sharp elbows and evoke worse from others. There's good information in your comments, but curious conversation (which is the goal here) also depends on how people conduct themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
      • iudqnolq 6y ago
        I apologize, thanks for correcting me.
        • dang 6y ago
          Appreciated!
      • 6y ago
  • extra88 6y ago
    If you can display something on :hover, you can also display it on :focus (and/or :focus-within). Pure CSS dropdown is more of an issue for touchscreen use; touchscreen-only users are not limited to smaller mobile devices. Please don't make a megamenu using CSS alone; for any keyboard-only user, sighted or blind, that's too many links to Tab through.
• pasquinelli 6y ago
  is that any different from saying that installing wheelchair ramps in old buildings will be expensive and, in some cases, difficult?
  • macintux 6y ago
    You can build a wheelchair ramp and perhaps it needs some new lumber occasionally but it's relatively easy to spot and fix problems. For a website, it could easily fall out of accessibility with an update to some library you rely on, and you wouldn't even know. To me, the difference is that software is never finished and behaves differently depending on who's using it on what OS and what web browser, and is thus that much harder to keep compliant.
    • Tomte 6y ago
      That's only because there are no incentives to make libraries work (and keep working) wrt to accessibility. So the courts provide the incentives.
    • Forge36 6y ago
      What if a business is in a city and the building is old? The number of stores downtown with a single step is surprisingly high. What are the rules on building the ramp on a public sidewalk? The roadblock isn't always maintenance, it's doing the work up front to avoid that step being a problem later.
      • macintux 6y ago
        There are definitely edge cases where a ramp can be harder to build than an accessible website is to maintain over the long run. I'm unconvinced that's more than a tiny fraction of the overall problem space.
    • derekp7 6y ago
      If you are using automated testing then you need to make the site accessible to the test script. Which kind of makes it accessible to screen readers automatically.
• iudqnolq 6y ago
  The difficulty really depends on how much you deviate from the browser defaults. For example, if you use the default datepicker it's accessible by default, if you build your own you'll need to annotate the states with accessibility attributes. I don't think it's as difficult as you make out to draw a line. An analogy: you can't have only a men's restroom in your Dominos store, but if can in your shed in your backyard for your friends if you want. Edit: Now I've read TFA I learned the law already has a perfectly reasonable sounding standard that was ruled not to apply to the internet in this case > Winn-Dixie had argued that the law defines "public accommodations" to only include physical locations like a store. A website isn't a physical location, and hence it's outside the scope of the law, the grocery chain argued.
  • blacktriangle 6y ago
    I'd hate to see this become the standard. The build-in browser datepicker is utter shit. There's a reason nobody uses it. Frankly the whole HTML form spec is a world of crap for what users are expecting from UIs these days. Being legally limited to what the WHATWG manages to agree on and ship in a browser would be a huge step back for web applications.
    • iudqnolq 6y ago
      The default is hard to use. However, I've found it better than the open-source alternatives I've seen (mainly AirBnB datepicker) if you test across {Chrome,Firefox}{Desktop,Mobile}. I also wasn't suggesting the built-in should be mandated, just that if you replace it you either provide a way to downgrade to the built-in or make your replacement at least as accessibile. If you make your replacement usable with only a keyboard you'll be nearly there anyway.
    • TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      Any half-decent datepicker library is going to be accessible. If you absolutely must reinvent the wheel, then yes, you will need to put in a bit of extra effort to make it accessible.
  • blincoln 6y ago
• nemo44x 6y ago
  Implementing text and a form to POST is really simple - especially when you don’t have to style it, etc. Blind people don’t need flashy UI’s. They need text and HTML serves this well.
• Shivetya 6y ago
  I don't see how all sites can comply nor do I think they should. However this really begs additional legislation to clarify the issue. What we need to identify is essential goods and services and any retailer offering such needs to provide reasonable accommodation if the method of the offering makes it feasible. The issue with some handicaps is that within each there are levels of impact. So that needs to be considered. With regards to the statement earlier where I think not all should be required I am just having mental block in understanding how would I communicate to a blind person a site like ebay where users put up goods and the vast majority rely on visual cues. Now the ordering and payment functions surely can be adopted but when you have user driven content what is a vendor to do? So, back again to legislation so that the courts don't much it up so much it becomes a paradise for predatory lawyers.
• tzs 6y ago
  > I suspect the Domino's ruling will be the winning one, but I don't know where that line gets drawn. I'm not so sure. Keep in mind that ADA doesn't require that you provide everyone with the exact same way to do everything. For example, a taxi company doesn't have to equip every cab so that it can handle every disability that might be encountered. It is OK for them to only have part of their fleet equipped for various disabilities, and dispatch those when someone needs one. With Domino's case, you have a lot of variations the customer has to choose from, and a lot of information that is on the website that would be slow and inconvenient to deal with by phone. Nutritional information, for example. It would be quite the hassle (for both the customer and the person at Domino's) to get nutritional information for all the options a customer might be interested in. I've spent 20 minutes at times fiddling with the build-your-own options checking out nutritional trade offs--that could have taken hours on the phone! Domino's also usually has a ton of coupons available and a bunch of different specials. Dealing with all those over the phone would also take a lot of time. Compare to a prescription refill at a pharmacy. There generally all you need to do is communicate your prescription number to the pharmacy. A phone refill consists of calling and when they answer saying "I need to refill prescription #NNNNNNNN". I think it is quite possible that courts will ultimately agree that for ordering a prescription refill, at least at a pharmacy that hasn't gone overboard with coupons and deals, providing phone ordering is sufficient accommodation for blind people but for ordering pizza at a place with a large menu that has a lot of customization options phone ordering is insufficient accommodation.
  • threatofrain 6y ago
    Any store with a combinatorial explosion would probably have a hard time creating any serial interface. The phone is such an interface, but in some ways it’s also the best because it’s one that comes with a human.
  • ghaff 6y ago
    Ordering a pizza usually isn't that complicated. I don't think my local place even has online ordering. I have a paper menu at home. I decide what I want, call them, and then I pick it up.
    • 6y ago
• BeetleB 6y ago
  I worked in the web accessibility space a decade ago. It really wasn't hard back then. However, for something as simple as a providing prescriptions, there is no argument that whatever was easy a decade ago won't work. They could either make a separate link/interface for accessibility purposes[0], or have done the right thing and designed it to be accessible from the get go, instead of trying to shoehorn an existing design into an accessible one. I'd bet money that the real problem here is that they built the site with little regard to accessibility, and are now dealing with the fallout. I'd wager that had they planned for an accessible site from the get-go, they would have built a site as good as it is now, and be accessible, with little extra cost. [0] Frankly, some ordinary people like me might actually prefer the non-fancy accessible UI. I bet most of their non-accessible stuff has little benefit to me.
  • throwawayboise 6y ago
    Isn't that the approach? I'm not much in front-end work these days. I thought it was: 1. Build a simple HTML/Forms implementation that works (but obviously is not feature-rich). 2. Enhance (1) with JavaScript/CSS to add all your fancy UI cosmetics. If there's no JavaScript or CSS, then you get the unenhanced version by default. Clearly for some things (e.g. Maps) that are inherently visual this isn't possible, but for the typical customer/business transactions we are talking about here, seems to me it should work.
    • extra88 6y ago
      You're basically describing "progressive enhancement." People with disabilities aren't really more likely to load a site without JavaScript or CSS though, a site can still require JavaScript and CSS to operate. It does take at least a little more work to make a form work through POST and as AJAX-submitted JSON. To be accessible, a site should be robust enough to work even when everything isn't the same as when the web author uses it (users use keyboard and other inputs instead of a cursor, have different screen sizes, zoom or enlarge text, use Windows High Contrast Mode to replace the site's colors with their own choices, etc.). > Clearly for some things (e.g. Maps) that are inherently visual this isn't possible The first interactive online maps were static images with North, South, East, West arrows (links) to load the next image; having to load the whole web page again for the next part of the map is not nearly as nice as loading image tiles dynamically but it does work. Dyanamic tile loading also doesn't have to be done only by cursor or touch, you can still have on-screen arrows that can be tapped or keyboard operated to load more tiles (plus loading tiles based on keyboard arrow keys, WASD, etc. while the map is focused).
• extra88 6y ago
  > Does my blog have to support accessibility? I don't sell anything, but it is public. No, it doesn't. Your home also doesn't need to be wheelchair accessible, even if you throw a party and welcome anyone in. > Is the neighborhood softball league going to have to implement it? Sounds like a private club so no, it doesn't. The outcome of this case would not change the answers to these questions. > Commercial entities will probably have to comply Yes. The law in question applies to "places of public accommodation" which is a legal phrase. This case, and similar cases, hinges on one of two questions: 1) do the ADA obligations of physical places (like grocery stores) extend to their non-physical goods and services or 2) do websites, apps, etc. constitute "places" in their own right (e.g. does this particular law apply to Hulu, Tinder, etc.)? In my opinion, the majority in this case was too focused on the laws lengthy, but clearly not comprehensive, list of example places, all of which were normally thought of as physical (but are not inherently so, even when the law was written), they didn't concern themselves enough that the clear intent of the law is to provide equal access to goods, services, etc.
• TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  I disagree. Getting to a basic level of accessibility (e.g. WCAG AA) is incredibly easy. Any public accommodation can easily afford it. A blog is not a public accommodation, so it does not have any accessibility requirement.
• _the_inflator 6y ago
  I don't think that one size fits all. Maybe there should be different versions of a website to handle different needs.