3 ms·

Where is the discrimination here?

falcolas 4y ago
> Where is the discrimination here? Restating the post I originally responded to: > Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? The key words from the comment are: "cannot look at it" For comparison, some other similar discriminatory phrases from history: "cannot swim in it", "cannot drink from it", "cannot ride on it", "cannot enter it", "cannot buy it"
- blowski 4y ago
  So because they cannot look at the design, that's discrimination, even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Why don't you take legal action against them?
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Just as a non-wheelchair accessible store is an example of discrimination, even if someone in a wheelchair could conceivably gain access to it by dragging themselves up the steps with their arms. > Why don't you take legal action against them? Because I'd honestly rather they do the right thing for the right reasons. Lawsuits should be a means of last resort. And honestly, I'm not rich enough to fund a legal campaign. I'll leave that to someone with more money than I.
    - blowski 4y ago
      If the user can use reasonable measures (such as different settings, or an alternative browser) to access the content, that's not at all the same as asking a wheelchair user to drag themselves up the stairs. There is absolutely no legal requirement to either spend a fortune on designers, or reduce your website to some boring text-only mush, in the name of "accessibility". The website in question is accessible via a screen-reader, but even if it wasn't, they are not in a market where broad accessibility would be considered a legal requirement. If that were the case, half the websites on the internet would be taken offline. If you did take this to court, you would lose.

> Where is the discrimination here? Restating the post I originally responded to: > Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? The key words from the comment are: "cannot look at it" For comparison, some other similar discriminatory phrases from history: "cannot swim in it", "cannot drink from it", "cannot ride on it", "cannot enter it", "cannot buy it"

blowski 4y ago
So because they cannot look at the design, that's discrimination, even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Why don't you take legal action against them?
- falcolas 4y ago
  > even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Just as a non-wheelchair accessible store is an example of discrimination, even if someone in a wheelchair could conceivably gain access to it by dragging themselves up the steps with their arms. > Why don't you take legal action against them? Because I'd honestly rather they do the right thing for the right reasons. Lawsuits should be a means of last resort. And honestly, I'm not rich enough to fund a legal campaign. I'll leave that to someone with more money than I.
  - blowski 4y ago
    If the user can use reasonable measures (such as different settings, or an alternative browser) to access the content, that's not at all the same as asking a wheelchair user to drag themselves up the stairs. There is absolutely no legal requirement to either spend a fortune on designers, or reduce your website to some boring text-only mush, in the name of "accessibility". The website in question is accessible via a screen-reader, but even if it wasn't, they are not in a market where broad accessibility would be considered a legal requirement. If that were the case, half the websites on the internet would be taken offline. If you did take this to court, you would lose.