3 ms·
You are correct that "reasonable accommodations" are, in fact, reasonable and don't have to be exactly what a disabled person asks for (though listening to peop
by extra88 4y ago
You are correct that "reasonable accommodations" are, in fact, reasonable and don't have to be exactly what a disabled person asks for (though listening to people when they tell you what they need is important).
> Ordering via phone could be an acceptable accommodation for an inaccessible website
A particular person may find ordering by phone to be acceptable but in court cases, it has been found to not be equal to using an accessible website. One example is in the Domoino's case [0] (it references experiencing long hold times but there are other reasons it is unequal).
[0] https://www.lflegal.com/2021/06/dominos-june-2021/#A-phone-is-not-equal-to-a-website https://www.lflegal.com/2021/06/dominos-june-2021/#A-phone-i...
- kayodelycaon 4y agoDomoino’s had 45+ minute wait times. That’s what got them in trouble. Phones are an acceptable alternative if you can provide equivalent service.
- extra88 4y agoA screen reader user can read all the information in a decent online menu way faster than having a Domino's employee read it to them. A customer who is deafblind or is blind and has a speech disability would need to use a TTY relay service, which makes it even slower. It is not unreasonable to make an ordering website accessible; Domino's even admitted it would only cost $58,000. $58K would be a lot if every individual restaurant in the country had to spend that much. Thankfully, that's not the case, most don't have an don't need their own bespoke ordering site, they license a platform.