Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Domino’s takes its case for non-accessible design to the Supreme Court
NorthCascades
Posts: 10,968 Member
This might (or not) be of interest to some in here. Certainly pizza is a fun tie in.
The shift toward using an app on your phone to place an order, instead of using your phone to call a place, has made life easier for millions of people. Unfortunately, that shift has the opposite effect on blind and visually impaired consumers, for whom thousands of websites and mobile apps are unusable. Domino's Pizza maintains one such site, and it's asking the Supreme Court to let the site stay that way.
Domino's made a legal filing called a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court last week—basically, an argument for why the nation's highest court should take its case. In the petition (PDF), Domino's asks the court to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a retailer's website or app to "satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/dominos-takes-its-case-for-non-accessible-design-to-the-supreme-court/
My opinion is that they make a good case, but chose their battles poorly. It will cost more to defend their position then to fix their code. Winning means selling fewer pizzas over the long term.
I have more to say on the matter, but will open it up to the floor first.
The shift toward using an app on your phone to place an order, instead of using your phone to call a place, has made life easier for millions of people. Unfortunately, that shift has the opposite effect on blind and visually impaired consumers, for whom thousands of websites and mobile apps are unusable. Domino's Pizza maintains one such site, and it's asking the Supreme Court to let the site stay that way.
Domino's made a legal filing called a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court last week—basically, an argument for why the nation's highest court should take its case. In the petition (PDF), Domino's asks the court to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a retailer's website or app to "satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/dominos-takes-its-case-for-non-accessible-design-to-the-supreme-court/
My opinion is that they make a good case, but chose their battles poorly. It will cost more to defend their position then to fix their code. Winning means selling fewer pizzas over the long term.
I have more to say on the matter, but will open it up to the floor first.
2
Replies
-
I'm not sure why Domino's would fight so hard to restrict their customer pool.
Bedises visually impaired people, what about people who do not have smartphones or computers, such as senior citizens and low-income individuals?
In my region, Domino's is the cheapest pizza delivery option for people with limited funds. I would think this would hurt their sales.5 -
If they were in my portfolio, I'd consider selling. As presented in the article (which may not be all that on point), they're being stupid and short-sighted. (Not sure whether that last is "pun intended" or not.)
I understand about the ambiguity of technical requirements, etc. But making it possible for people with vision limitations to order is pretty achievable (as a practical thing, which may be distinct from technical compliance with a law . . . sometimes the technical defintion is suboptimal for individuals with limitations, and confusing for service providers besides).
While I'm only a casual observer (though in Domino's home state), they're usually not way stupid or anti-public-spirited, so I'm suspecting there's more to this than the article offers. Dunno, though.5 -
Apparently there are a number of such lawsuits happening now. This may explain a bit of Domino's desire to fight this.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750913/dominos-pizza-website-accessible-blind-supreme-court-lawsuitIn its petition to the Supreme Court, Domino’s references included features of its website, like the Pizza Tracker, that may be difficult to translate into words and that could result in higher costs during the retrofit. “For more complex websites with video content, interactive features, and links to other webpages, costs can reach even higher. Banks estimated that satisfying website-accessibility requirements could reach $3 million per website,” the document reads. “This wide variation reflects not only differences in the complexity of websites, but uncertainty over what compliance even means.”
According to CNBC, a number of restaurant- and retail-friendly groups, like the Chamber of Commerce and the Restaurant Law Center, have filed amicus briefs in support of Domino’s.
3 mil per site and potentially still liability...that would be a precarious position to be in.4 -
I work at Microsoft, fixing accessibility bugs - that's why this headline grabbed my attention. It's not only the blind, for example people's with motor impairments (like multiple sclerosis) can often use a keyboard but not a mouse or touch screen. For the blind, it often means making content compatible with screen readers and other tools. State governments collectively spend billions on Microsoft products even when there are free alternatives, because they're accessible to people with disabilities. It's a very good investment.
There is an established set of best practices for this. Like with most things, it's fairly easy to do when it's part of the design from the start, but can be difficult to retrofit in. A lot of off-the-shelf web site builders and e-commerce solutions are generally considered compliant out of the box.
Ultimately Domino's is probably within their rights. If the restaurants themselves are ADA compliant, they're probably allowed to offer additional methods of ordering that are not. I think it's short sighed bad business though.9 -
Apparently there are a number of such lawsuits happening now. This may explain a bit of Domino's desire to fight this.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750913/dominos-pizza-website-accessible-blind-supreme-court-lawsuitIn its petition to the Supreme Court, Domino’s references included features of its website, like the Pizza Tracker, that may be difficult to translate into words and that could result in higher costs during the retrofit. “For more complex websites with video content, interactive features, and links to other webpages, costs can reach even higher. Banks estimated that satisfying website-accessibility requirements could reach $3 million per website,” the document reads. “This wide variation reflects not only differences in the complexity of websites, but uncertainty over what compliance even means.”
According to CNBC, a number of restaurant- and retail-friendly groups, like the Chamber of Commerce and the Restaurant Law Center, have filed amicus briefs in support of Domino’s.
3 mil per site and potentially still liability...that would be a precarious position to be in.
im not buying those stats. 3 million for programming a site? 'lord vader' in mom's basement could do it for a free pizza. you gonna trust a bank estimating their expenses?3 -
Poor Business Decision ? Yep.
Bad P.R. ? No Doubt About It.
Violation of the ADA ? .... I'm not so sure about that.
I don't know where the ADA falls in this regard.
Also, the ADA law is about 30 years old and it is constantly changing.
6 -
Me? Nope lol. The point is if that's truly the number Domino's is getting from bank estimates that's what they'll use. It helps their case. The obvious issue with that is it won't take much at all for the plaintiff to get access to multiple real world estimates to shoot that down. Got to keep in mind though, some typists charge an awful lot of money. And I can't help but wonder if whatever bank gave that estimate is including on site infrastructure upgrades as well. The defendant is going to want that number as high as possible, so probably.Apparently there are a number of such lawsuits happening now. This may explain a bit of Domino's desire to fight this.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750913/dominos-pizza-website-accessible-blind-supreme-court-lawsuitIn its petition to the Supreme Court, Domino’s references included features of its website, like the Pizza Tracker, that may be difficult to translate into words and that could result in higher costs during the retrofit. “For more complex websites with video content, interactive features, and links to other webpages, costs can reach even higher. Banks estimated that satisfying website-accessibility requirements could reach $3 million per website,” the document reads. “This wide variation reflects not only differences in the complexity of websites, but uncertainty over what compliance even means.”
According to CNBC, a number of restaurant- and retail-friendly groups, like the Chamber of Commerce and the Restaurant Law Center, have filed amicus briefs in support of Domino’s.
3 mil per site and potentially still liability...that would be a precarious position to be in.
im not buying those stats. 3 million for programming a site? 'lord vader' in mom's basement could do it for a free pizza. you gonna trust a bank estimating their expenses?
Meh - Their pizza isn't good enough for this to warrant too much of my attention lol.
2 -
Seems like some bull **** path towards automation. #Corporate fat cats + Accountants2
-
Apparently there are a number of such lawsuits happening now. This may explain a bit of Domino's desire to fight this.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750913/dominos-pizza-website-accessible-blind-supreme-court-lawsuitIn its petition to the Supreme Court, Domino’s references included features of its website, like the Pizza Tracker, that may be difficult to translate into words and that could result in higher costs during the retrofit. “For more complex websites with video content, interactive features, and links to other webpages, costs can reach even higher. Banks estimated that satisfying website-accessibility requirements could reach $3 million per website,” the document reads. “This wide variation reflects not only differences in the complexity of websites, but uncertainty over what compliance even means.”
According to CNBC, a number of restaurant- and retail-friendly groups, like the Chamber of Commerce and the Restaurant Law Center, have filed amicus briefs in support of Domino’s.
3 mil per site and potentially still liability...that would be a precarious position to be in.
im not buying those stats. 3 million for programming a site? 'lord vader' in mom's basement could do it for a free pizza. you gonna trust a bank estimating their expenses?
Meh - Their pizza isn't good enough for this to warrant too much of my attention lol.
QFT2 -
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750913/dominos-pizza-website-accessible-blind-supreme-court-lawsuit
"Unless this Court steps in now, defendants must retool their websites to comply with Title III without any guidance on what accessibility in the online environment means for individuals with the variety of disabilities covered by the ADA"
and
“This wide variation reflects not only differences in the complexity of websites, but uncertainty over what compliance even means.”
I'm pretty sure it's fair to codify into law what compliance entails before considering it a requirement of the law.
Regardless of my opinion about their pizza, they've got a perfectly valid argument.
3 -
Meh - Their pizza isn't good enough for this to warrant too much of my attention lol.
Definitely agree. Pizza is calorie dense, so when you have it, you should have good pizza and really enjoy it. 🙂
This is interesting (to me at least) in the sense that technology is transforming life, questions about leaving people behind seem like important ones to me.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Meh - Their pizza isn't good enough for this to warrant too much of my attention lol.
Definitely agree. Pizza is calorie dense, so when you have it, you should have good pizza and really enjoy it. 🙂
This is interesting (to me at least) in the sense that technology is transforming life, questions about leaving people behind seem like important ones to me.
I would image that with the breakneck speed in which technology is developing, legal issues pertaining to this same technology will always be a step or two behind.4 -
There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.5 -
Yeah I agree with that. My only concern over something like this is that the full requirements don't seem to have been fully written into law/policy yet, so...keeping it short, it seems navigating the potential for liability even if the company willingly complies would be a nightmare. There are so many variables...NorthCascades wrote: »Meh - Their pizza isn't good enough for this to warrant too much of my attention lol.
Definitely agree. Pizza is calorie dense, so when you have it, you should have good pizza and really enjoy it. 🙂
This is interesting (to me at least) in the sense that technology is transforming life, questions about leaving people behind seem like important ones to me.
3 -
Motorsheen wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Meh - Their pizza isn't good enough for this to warrant too much of my attention lol.
Definitely agree. Pizza is calorie dense, so when you have it, you should have good pizza and really enjoy it. 🙂
This is interesting (to me at least) in the sense that technology is transforming life, questions about leaving people behind seem like important ones to me.
I would image that with the breakneck speed in which technology is developing, legal issues pertaining to this same technology will always be a step or two behind.
Pretty much, it seems the laws and policies is written after someone challenges the existing status quo.3 -
Keto_Vampire wrote: »Seems like some bull **** path towards automation. #Corporate fat cats + Accountants
The future
1 -
MiloBloom83 wrote: »
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
Short answer: it depends. Is it the law? Is it only a business decision? ... dunno.
Let's say that you have a building that is open to the public ( the example I'm thinking of is say... a community hospital) and there are no handicapped accessible restrooms on the main floor.
It's not exactly cost effective to move load-bearing walls and reconfigure an entire space, but it is the law of the land. In this example, they need to comply.
In regards to the ADA, there is also the subject of letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. Sometimes the architecture of the space will not allow compliance to the letter of the law, in that case, the owner needs to accommodate the disabled to the best of their ability, working in good faith of the ADA.
If memory serves, the very first ADA case was the Empire State Building. It was because the observation deck was not wheelchair accessible. What does one do to rectify this situation? I don't know what was done, but it now seems that the Empire State Building is entirely ADA compliant.
In the case of electronic applications, I'm not a I.T. guy, so I have no idea if this falls under the purview of the ADA. (I guess it's up to the court to decide these issues.). My hunch is that it's not a big deal and it would simply be a best practice. Why alienate a segment of your purchasing public? It's also terrible P.R..
2 -
MiloBloom83 wrote: »There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
This is the whole reason why the ADA exists. If disability accessibility was left up to "business decisions", society would still be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The ADA is what allows many disabled people to live independent lives.
I have a friend who is blind and a disability rights lawyer, so this has been an issue she has been talking about a lot. If you exempt the internet from the ADA, you are essentially taking a huge step backwards for a society that is accessible, especially as more and more of our daily lives become dependent on the internet.
The law still calls for "reasonable accommodation", so in these situations, there is always a determination that needs to be made if the accommodation is reasonable. It's why some buildings don't have to be wheelchair complaint, for example. But it would be hard for me to imagine that a company as large as Domino's can really make a good faith argument that making so it so blind people can order a pizza off their website is an unreasonable accommodation.4 -
MiloBloom83 wrote: »There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
This is the whole reason why the ADA exists. If disability accessibility was left up to "business decisions", society would still be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The ADA is what allows many disabled people to live independent lives.
I have a friend who is blind and a disability rights lawyer, so this has been an issue she has been talking about a lot. If you exempt the internet from the ADA, you are essentially taking a huge step backwards for a society that is accessible, especially as more and more of our daily lives become dependent on the internet.
The law still calls for "reasonable accommodation", so in these situations, there is always a determination that needs to be made if the accommodation is reasonable. It's why some buildings don't have to be wheelchair complaint, for example. But it would be hard for me to imagine that a company as large as Domino's can really make a good faith argument that making so it so blind people can order a pizza off their website is an unreasonable accommodation.
That isn't the argument though Mike.Parties on both sides of this and several previous lawsuits have pointed out that the law itself is unclear. The ADA doesn't have any specific provisions dealing with Web or mobile storefronts because it became law in the long-ago era of 1990, before such services existed.The Justice Department has changed its position on the question several times in the intervening decades, but it never actually issued a final rule or a unified guidance either way, leaving the matter to be handled in court.
Accessibility technology firm UsableNet said in a recent report that more than 2,200 lawsuits related to Web accessibility issues were filed nationwide in 2018, with a combined 49 percent of those suits filed against retail and food service businesses.
These suits are a "no-win scenario" for companies on the receiving end, Domino's said. "And it is also a no-win scenario for individuals with disabilities, because defendants faced with these suits overwhelmingly enter into piecemeal monetary settlements with individual plaintiffs or eliminate their online offerings instead of trying to keep up with moving-target compliance standards" that evolve as technology changes.
It's a money sink for the companies being sued due to the fact that it's quite easy for the plaintiff to move the goal posts. There is currently no hard and fast standard for what constitutes "Reasonable accommodation" on the web.
Say Dominos loses this suit. They retool their site and app per court order. To most folks who have no challenging disability, a fix for the blind is a fix for the blind. But what if blind person B finds that they have trouble navigating what's acceptable now to blind person A? Another lawsuit?
The courts need to spell out line item by line item what is acceptable accommodation for the masses. If they don't, things will continue as they are, courts disagreeing on what's legal or right and where to draw the line.3 -
MiloBloom83 wrote: »There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
I live in WV - decent cell coverage is a luxury and why many people still have landlines around here. What's even worse? internet coverage. I was extremely fortunate that I live on a main highway alongside the cable line and was able to get broadband. Many people in this state have no access to broadband at all, leaving the only internet options being Frontier DSL (who's service is beyond horrible with constant blackouts, extremely slow service, poor customer service, etc considering their captive audience) or satellite internet which can be extremely expensive and as unreliable.
So frankly, where I live, most people are too rural to be able to have pizza delivered (I'm too far out to have it delivered to my house), and most people don't have internet ability to order the pizza even if it could be delivered.
Still, my thoughts are that the law definitely needs to be updated to reflect at least current technology. I realize that technology changes so quickly that it would be nigh on impossible to cover every possibility or keep it current, but a 25 year old law that doesn't even address the technology of 20 years ago is a problem.3 -
MiloBloom83 wrote: »There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
This is the whole reason why the ADA exists. If disability accessibility was left up to "business decisions", society would still be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The ADA is what allows many disabled people to live independent lives.
I have a friend who is blind and a disability rights lawyer, so this has been an issue she has been talking about a lot. If you exempt the internet from the ADA, you are essentially taking a huge step backwards for a society that is accessible, especially as more and more of our daily lives become dependent on the internet.
The law still calls for "reasonable accommodation", so in these situations, there is always a determination that needs to be made if the accommodation is reasonable. It's why some buildings don't have to be wheelchair complaint, for example. But it would be hard for me to imagine that a company as large as Domino's can really make a good faith argument that making so it so blind people can order a pizza off their website is an unreasonable accommodation.
That isn't the argument though Mike.Parties on both sides of this and several previous lawsuits have pointed out that the law itself is unclear. The ADA doesn't have any specific provisions dealing with Web or mobile storefronts because it became law in the long-ago era of 1990, before such services existed.The Justice Department has changed its position on the question several times in the intervening decades, but it never actually issued a final rule or a unified guidance either way, leaving the matter to be handled in court.
Accessibility technology firm UsableNet said in a recent report that more than 2,200 lawsuits related to Web accessibility issues were filed nationwide in 2018, with a combined 49 percent of those suits filed against retail and food service businesses.
These suits are a "no-win scenario" for companies on the receiving end, Domino's said. "And it is also a no-win scenario for individuals with disabilities, because defendants faced with these suits overwhelmingly enter into piecemeal monetary settlements with individual plaintiffs or eliminate their online offerings instead of trying to keep up with moving-target compliance standards" that evolve as technology changes.
It's a money sink for the companies being sued due to the fact that it's quite easy for the plaintiff to move the goal posts. There is currently no hard and fast standard for what constitutes "Reasonable accommodation" on the web.
Say Dominos loses this suit. They retool their site and app per court order. To most folks who have no challenging disability, a fix for the blind is a fix for the blind. But what if blind person B finds that they have trouble navigating what's acceptable now to blind person A? Another lawsuit?
The courts need to spell out line item by line item what is acceptable accommodation for the masses. If they don't, things will continue as they are, courts disagreeing on what's legal or right and where to draw the line.
How is making text available to screen readers and not using gray text on a gray background going to make it harder for other blind people?2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MiloBloom83 wrote: »There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
This is the whole reason why the ADA exists. If disability accessibility was left up to "business decisions", society would still be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The ADA is what allows many disabled people to live independent lives.
I have a friend who is blind and a disability rights lawyer, so this has been an issue she has been talking about a lot. If you exempt the internet from the ADA, you are essentially taking a huge step backwards for a society that is accessible, especially as more and more of our daily lives become dependent on the internet.
The law still calls for "reasonable accommodation", so in these situations, there is always a determination that needs to be made if the accommodation is reasonable. It's why some buildings don't have to be wheelchair complaint, for example. But it would be hard for me to imagine that a company as large as Domino's can really make a good faith argument that making so it so blind people can order a pizza off their website is an unreasonable accommodation.
That isn't the argument though Mike.Parties on both sides of this and several previous lawsuits have pointed out that the law itself is unclear. The ADA doesn't have any specific provisions dealing with Web or mobile storefronts because it became law in the long-ago era of 1990, before such services existed.The Justice Department has changed its position on the question several times in the intervening decades, but it never actually issued a final rule or a unified guidance either way, leaving the matter to be handled in court.
Accessibility technology firm UsableNet said in a recent report that more than 2,200 lawsuits related to Web accessibility issues were filed nationwide in 2018, with a combined 49 percent of those suits filed against retail and food service businesses.
These suits are a "no-win scenario" for companies on the receiving end, Domino's said. "And it is also a no-win scenario for individuals with disabilities, because defendants faced with these suits overwhelmingly enter into piecemeal monetary settlements with individual plaintiffs or eliminate their online offerings instead of trying to keep up with moving-target compliance standards" that evolve as technology changes.
It's a money sink for the companies being sued due to the fact that it's quite easy for the plaintiff to move the goal posts. There is currently no hard and fast standard for what constitutes "Reasonable accommodation" on the web.
Say Dominos loses this suit. They retool their site and app per court order. To most folks who have no challenging disability, a fix for the blind is a fix for the blind. But what if blind person B finds that they have trouble navigating what's acceptable now to blind person A? Another lawsuit?
The courts need to spell out line item by line item what is acceptable accommodation for the masses. If they don't, things will continue as they are, courts disagreeing on what's legal or right and where to draw the line.
How is making text available to screen readers and not using gray text on a gray background going to make it harder for other blind people?
Will the availability of text for screen readers be the only modification required? I haven't dug into this and don't know....0 -
Aside from any of the website/app accessibility - it's not like *DOMINO'S* isn't accessible. They still accept phone orders, so it's not like anyone is denying pizza to the blind.
Right after I thought that, though, I remembered the Slice of the Pie Rewards program that incentivizes web orders. But my husband reminds me that that was the whole point of a rewards program - to incentivize web orders. It frees up whichever employee from constantly taking orders over the phone so that they can save money on labor and eliminate a job!
He asks "what's next? Lawsuits against the Fine Arts Museum because it's not accessible to the blind? Against the Symphony because it's not suited to the hearing impaired?"8 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »Aside from any of the website/app accessibility - it's not like *DOMINO'S* isn't accessible. They still accept phone orders, so it's not like anyone is denying pizza to the blind.
Right after I thought that, though, I remembered the Slice of the Pie Rewards program that incentivizes web orders. But my husband reminds me that that was the whole point of a rewards program - to incentivize web orders. It frees up whichever employee from constantly taking orders over the phone so that they can save money on labor and eliminate a job!
He asks "what's next? Lawsuits against the Fine Arts Museum because it's not accessible to the blind? Against the Symphony because it's not suited to the hearing impaired?"
Against a National Park say Yosemite because all the loop trails aren't wheelchair accessible to view some of the incredible sites?4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MiloBloom83 wrote: »There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
This is the whole reason why the ADA exists. If disability accessibility was left up to "business decisions", society would still be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The ADA is what allows many disabled people to live independent lives.
I have a friend who is blind and a disability rights lawyer, so this has been an issue she has been talking about a lot. If you exempt the internet from the ADA, you are essentially taking a huge step backwards for a society that is accessible, especially as more and more of our daily lives become dependent on the internet.
The law still calls for "reasonable accommodation", so in these situations, there is always a determination that needs to be made if the accommodation is reasonable. It's why some buildings don't have to be wheelchair complaint, for example. But it would be hard for me to imagine that a company as large as Domino's can really make a good faith argument that making so it so blind people can order a pizza off their website is an unreasonable accommodation.
That isn't the argument though Mike.Parties on both sides of this and several previous lawsuits have pointed out that the law itself is unclear. The ADA doesn't have any specific provisions dealing with Web or mobile storefronts because it became law in the long-ago era of 1990, before such services existed.The Justice Department has changed its position on the question several times in the intervening decades, but it never actually issued a final rule or a unified guidance either way, leaving the matter to be handled in court.
Accessibility technology firm UsableNet said in a recent report that more than 2,200 lawsuits related to Web accessibility issues were filed nationwide in 2018, with a combined 49 percent of those suits filed against retail and food service businesses.
These suits are a "no-win scenario" for companies on the receiving end, Domino's said. "And it is also a no-win scenario for individuals with disabilities, because defendants faced with these suits overwhelmingly enter into piecemeal monetary settlements with individual plaintiffs or eliminate their online offerings instead of trying to keep up with moving-target compliance standards" that evolve as technology changes.
It's a money sink for the companies being sued due to the fact that it's quite easy for the plaintiff to move the goal posts. There is currently no hard and fast standard for what constitutes "Reasonable accommodation" on the web.
Say Dominos loses this suit. They retool their site and app per court order. To most folks who have no challenging disability, a fix for the blind is a fix for the blind. But what if blind person B finds that they have trouble navigating what's acceptable now to blind person A? Another lawsuit?
The courts need to spell out line item by line item what is acceptable accommodation for the masses. If they don't, things will continue as they are, courts disagreeing on what's legal or right and where to draw the line.
How is making text available to screen readers and not using gray text on a gray background going to make it harder for other blind people?
Will the availability of text for screen readers be the only modification required? I haven't dug into this and don't know....
I did a little more reading up on this, specifically "How does a visually impaired person use a website?" and landed on this one, out of quite a few...I do not know if this is what the plaintiffs in all those cases are hoping for. I'm just trying to learn a bit more about the issue.
https://mashable.com/2011/04/20/design-for-visually-impaired/
1. Make Allowances For Enlarged Text
2. Contrast is Key
3. Be Mindful of Colors for Action Items
4. Let Desktop Users Browse Your Mobile Site
5. Use Keyboard Shortcuts to Aid Navigation
Maybe @NorthCascades ...could you weigh in on how difficult this might be to implement, assuming this is in line with what compliance would look like? Thanks0 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »Aside from any of the website/app accessibility - it's not like *DOMINO'S* isn't accessible. They still accept phone orders, so it's not like anyone is denying pizza to the blind.
Right after I thought that, though, I remembered the Slice of the Pie Rewards program that incentivizes web orders. But my husband reminds me that that was the whole point of a rewards program - to incentivize web orders. It frees up whichever employee from constantly taking orders over the phone so that they can save money on labor and eliminate a job!
He asks "what's next? Lawsuits against the Fine Arts Museum because it's not accessible to the blind? Against the Symphony because it's not suited to the hearing impaired?"
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm personally viewing this from a "Not all lawsuits are frivolous" angle. For better or worse, we're rapidly becoming an internet based economy, if not culture. Kind of a "How would I feel as an independent adult who can't do something as simple as ordering a pizza through an app?"
It isn't a huge issue to me to be honest, but then again I am very gratefully not blind either...4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MiloBloom83 wrote: »There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
This is the whole reason why the ADA exists. If disability accessibility was left up to "business decisions", society would still be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The ADA is what allows many disabled people to live independent lives.
I have a friend who is blind and a disability rights lawyer, so this has been an issue she has been talking about a lot. If you exempt the internet from the ADA, you are essentially taking a huge step backwards for a society that is accessible, especially as more and more of our daily lives become dependent on the internet.
The law still calls for "reasonable accommodation", so in these situations, there is always a determination that needs to be made if the accommodation is reasonable. It's why some buildings don't have to be wheelchair complaint, for example. But it would be hard for me to imagine that a company as large as Domino's can really make a good faith argument that making so it so blind people can order a pizza off their website is an unreasonable accommodation.
That isn't the argument though Mike.Parties on both sides of this and several previous lawsuits have pointed out that the law itself is unclear. The ADA doesn't have any specific provisions dealing with Web or mobile storefronts because it became law in the long-ago era of 1990, before such services existed.The Justice Department has changed its position on the question several times in the intervening decades, but it never actually issued a final rule or a unified guidance either way, leaving the matter to be handled in court.
Accessibility technology firm UsableNet said in a recent report that more than 2,200 lawsuits related to Web accessibility issues were filed nationwide in 2018, with a combined 49 percent of those suits filed against retail and food service businesses.
These suits are a "no-win scenario" for companies on the receiving end, Domino's said. "And it is also a no-win scenario for individuals with disabilities, because defendants faced with these suits overwhelmingly enter into piecemeal monetary settlements with individual plaintiffs or eliminate their online offerings instead of trying to keep up with moving-target compliance standards" that evolve as technology changes.
It's a money sink for the companies being sued due to the fact that it's quite easy for the plaintiff to move the goal posts. There is currently no hard and fast standard for what constitutes "Reasonable accommodation" on the web.
Say Dominos loses this suit. They retool their site and app per court order. To most folks who have no challenging disability, a fix for the blind is a fix for the blind. But what if blind person B finds that they have trouble navigating what's acceptable now to blind person A? Another lawsuit?
The courts need to spell out line item by line item what is acceptable accommodation for the masses. If they don't, things will continue as they are, courts disagreeing on what's legal or right and where to draw the line.
How is making text available to screen readers and not using gray text on a gray background going to make it harder for other blind people?
Will the availability of text for screen readers be the only modification required? I haven't dug into this and don't know....
I did a little more reading up on this, specifically "How does a visually impaired person use a website?" and landed on this one, out of quite a few...I do not know if this is what the plaintiffs in all those cases are hoping for. I'm just trying to learn a bit more about the issue.
https://mashable.com/2011/04/20/design-for-visually-impaired/
1. Make Allowances For Enlarged Text
2. Contrast is Key
3. Be Mindful of Colors for Action Items
4. Let Desktop Users Browse Your Mobile Site
5. Use Keyboard Shortcuts to Aid Navigation
Maybe @NorthCascades ...could you weigh in on how difficult this might be to implement, assuming this is in line with what compliance would look like? Thanks
This is a pretty good list. I work on desktop app but it's basically the same stuff (except #4 doesn't apply).
#2 and #3 are trivially easy. With any well designed site, all the colors are together in one place in the same file (a "style sheet.") There is software that measures the contest ratio between text and background and can automatically file a bug for everything it finds out of spec.
#4 I assume means make the mobile and desktop site available regardless of how you visit? That mostly just requires a link.
#5 is very easy, maybe not trivial because you have to decide what key does what, and you can't use the same one twice. 🙂 This is important for people with motor control impairments.
#1 can be the most tricky in a worst case, because bigger text can affect the whole visual design, so you often need a designer and not just a coder to weigh in on that.
And they didn't mention it but #6 is don't put text in pictures as part of your site. Style the text instead. Screen readers can't do images. This is already done for just about any commercial site because it's also part of search engine marketing.3 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »Aside from any of the website/app accessibility - it's not like *DOMINO'S* isn't accessible. They still accept phone orders, so it's not like anyone is denying pizza to the blind.
Right after I thought that, though, I remembered the Slice of the Pie Rewards program that incentivizes web orders. But my husband reminds me that that was the whole point of a rewards program - to incentivize web orders. It frees up whichever employee from constantly taking orders over the phone so that they can save money on labor and eliminate a job!
He asks "what's next? Lawsuits against the Fine Arts Museum because it's not accessible to the blind? Against the Symphony because it's not suited to the hearing impaired?"
Against a National Park say Yosemite because all the loop trails aren't wheelchair accessible to view some of the incredible sites?
You can't use imaginary events to counter real things in a debate.
And a suit like this would never go anywhere because the law requires REASONABLE accommodation.
Besides, humans built Domino's website, unlike the terrain of Yosemite Valley.
I don't think that disabled people wanting to be included in modern life is frivolous or stupid right off the bat.5 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »He asks "what's next? Lawsuits against the Fine Arts Museum because it's not accessible to the blind? Against the Symphony because it's not suited to the hearing impaired?"
Life isn't fair sometimes. I can't run a 4 minute mile, no matter how much I train my body is just better suited to other sports. There's nothing that can be done about that. Using best practices on a website can be done, it's not like magic allowing the blind to appreciate Jackson Pollock. There's no reason to mock disabled people for wanting access that can fairly easily be made for them.10 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »MiloBloom83 wrote: »There are existing Technologies available for people to order pizza in addition to using a touch screen or phone app. I really don't see why it would be necessary to have everything available to everyone. Hell, there are still places I can't get a cell signal around here.
To me it sounds like a business decision based on cost, and if it's not cost-effective you shouldn't do it. Bottom line.
This is the whole reason why the ADA exists. If disability accessibility was left up to "business decisions", society would still be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The ADA is what allows many disabled people to live independent lives.
I have a friend who is blind and a disability rights lawyer, so this has been an issue she has been talking about a lot. If you exempt the internet from the ADA, you are essentially taking a huge step backwards for a society that is accessible, especially as more and more of our daily lives become dependent on the internet.
The law still calls for "reasonable accommodation", so in these situations, there is always a determination that needs to be made if the accommodation is reasonable. It's why some buildings don't have to be wheelchair complaint, for example. But it would be hard for me to imagine that a company as large as Domino's can really make a good faith argument that making so it so blind people can order a pizza off their website is an unreasonable accommodation.
That isn't the argument though Mike.Parties on both sides of this and several previous lawsuits have pointed out that the law itself is unclear. The ADA doesn't have any specific provisions dealing with Web or mobile storefronts because it became law in the long-ago era of 1990, before such services existed.The Justice Department has changed its position on the question several times in the intervening decades, but it never actually issued a final rule or a unified guidance either way, leaving the matter to be handled in court.
Accessibility technology firm UsableNet said in a recent report that more than 2,200 lawsuits related to Web accessibility issues were filed nationwide in 2018, with a combined 49 percent of those suits filed against retail and food service businesses.
These suits are a "no-win scenario" for companies on the receiving end, Domino's said. "And it is also a no-win scenario for individuals with disabilities, because defendants faced with these suits overwhelmingly enter into piecemeal monetary settlements with individual plaintiffs or eliminate their online offerings instead of trying to keep up with moving-target compliance standards" that evolve as technology changes.
It's a money sink for the companies being sued due to the fact that it's quite easy for the plaintiff to move the goal posts. There is currently no hard and fast standard for what constitutes "Reasonable accommodation" on the web.
Say Dominos loses this suit. They retool their site and app per court order. To most folks who have no challenging disability, a fix for the blind is a fix for the blind. But what if blind person B finds that they have trouble navigating what's acceptable now to blind person A? Another lawsuit?
The courts need to spell out line item by line item what is acceptable accommodation for the masses. If they don't, things will continue as they are, courts disagreeing on what's legal or right and where to draw the line.
How is making text available to screen readers and not using gray text on a gray background going to make it harder for other blind people?
Will the availability of text for screen readers be the only modification required? I haven't dug into this and don't know....
I did a little more reading up on this, specifically "How does a visually impaired person use a website?" and landed on this one, out of quite a few...I do not know if this is what the plaintiffs in all those cases are hoping for. I'm just trying to learn a bit more about the issue.
https://mashable.com/2011/04/20/design-for-visually-impaired/
1. Make Allowances For Enlarged Text
2. Contrast is Key
3. Be Mindful of Colors for Action Items
4. Let Desktop Users Browse Your Mobile Site
5. Use Keyboard Shortcuts to Aid Navigation
Maybe @NorthCascades ...could you weigh in on how difficult this might be to implement, assuming this is in line with what compliance would look like? Thanks
This is a pretty good list. I work on desktop app but it's basically the same stuff (except #4 doesn't apply).
#2 and #3 are trivially easy. With any well designed site, all the colors are together in one place in the same file (a "style sheet.") There is software that measures the contest ratio between text and background and can automatically file a bug for everything it finds out of spec.
#4 I assume means make the mobile and desktop site available regardless of how you visit? That mostly just requires a link.
#5 is very easy, maybe not trivial because you have to decide what key does what, and you can't use the same one twice. 🙂 This is important for people with motor control impairments.
#1 can be the most tricky in a worst case, because bigger text can affect the whole visual design, so you often need a designer and not just a coder to weigh in on that.
And they didn't mention it but #6 is don't put text in pictures as part of your site. Style the text instead. Screen readers can't do images. This is already done for just about any commercial site because it's also part of search engine marketing.
Thanks for the insight! To my non-coder educated self it seems the primary hurdle would be monetary? Just curious. As stated before I don't have a personal stake in any of this, although I do have issues with companies/corporations refusing to spend a little to make their consumers a bit more comfortable and able.
I also have issues with frivolous lawsuits, but I'm not sure yet which this is lol.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions