3 ms·
It's interesting that you are mainly considering the experience of a hypothetical small business owner and what they would be happy to do, and not the experienc
by WesternWind 5y ago
It's interesting that you are mainly considering the experience of a hypothetical small business owner and what they would be happy to do, and not the experiences of disabled people, and what's easy for them.
It's a lot easier to fix the issues the Justice Department mentions, and it's really a pretty short list, than it is to live with a disability. If your business is open to the public then it has certain responsibilities under the law.
Anyway phone calls don't necessarily work well for deaf blind folks, people with disorders like ALS (Stephen Hawking etc), and some folks on the autism spectrum.
- Aerroon 5y ago>It's interesting that you are mainly considering the experience of a hypothetical small business owner and what they would be happy to do, and not the experiences of disabled people, and what's easy for them. The reason you think about this from the perspective of the small business owner is because if it's too overwhelming/difficult for the business then they just won't have a website at all. Then accessibility of the website doesn't matter, but everyone is worse off in this outcome. They might put up a page for the business on Facebook, but if you're not on Facebook then tough luck. Or maybe there's no page at all and you have to go there in person to find out basic information like when the business is actually open. In these cases nobody wins. Even a broken website that's only partly usable would've been better, but that would be a liability for the business.
- WesternWind 5y agoI mean those are possible outcomes. It's also possible they may make simple changes and have a more accessible webpage. Given they already have a site and pay for hosting and a domain name, that seems like they might see having the site might be seen as a sunk cost.