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
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
And that.1 -
It seems like the biggest issue is, there is no clearly defined rules for compliance. No large company wants to make a compliance change more than once, and multiple suits in different courts have netted different rules for what qualifies as compliant or if web/mobile sites even should require compliance.
I agree that this is the perfect case for the Supreme Court. There needs to be a unified ruling regarding what is or isn't compliant in terms of companies offering web/mobile items to disabled users. That's what the Supreme Court can do, set a clear structure around this that the lower courts can then use to make individual decisions consistently.1 -
Is the app the *exclusive* means by which to place an order? If not, I don't see the problem.3
-
Agreed. Compliance is difficult at best if there are no clear cut standards to comply with...tcunbeliever wrote: »It seems like the biggest issue is, there is no clearly defined rules for compliance. No large company wants to make a compliance change more than once, and multiple suits in different courts have netted different rules for what qualifies as compliant or if web/mobile sites even should require compliance.
I agree that this is the perfect case for the Supreme Court. There needs to be a unified ruling regarding what is or isn't compliant in terms of companies offering web/mobile items to disabled users. That's what the Supreme Court can do, set a clear structure around this that the lower courts can then use to make individual decisions consistently.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
The option of calling and ordering over the phone isn't reasonable accommodation?4 -
Agreed. Compliance is difficult at best if there are no clear cut standards to comply with...tcunbeliever wrote: »It seems like the biggest issue is, there is no clearly defined rules for compliance. No large company wants to make a compliance change more than once, and multiple suits in different courts have netted different rules for what qualifies as compliant or if web/mobile sites even should require compliance.
I agree that this is the perfect case for the Supreme Court. There needs to be a unified ruling regarding what is or isn't compliant in terms of companies offering web/mobile items to disabled users. That's what the Supreme Court can do, set a clear structure around this that the lower courts can then use to make individual decisions consistently.
This has been the model the US has used for ages - the industry is expected to police themselves based upon guidances instead of rules since the 90s when every regulation became such a political hot button and nothing can get passed through congress. There's a good deal of risk assessment and mitigation involved which boils down to three primary elements:
1. Serve the public trust (your customers)
2. Show your work (data integrity)
3. Show improvements to process (continuous improvement)
If you can demonstrate these three core values then you'll be fine.
0 -
From the article linked in the OP:
"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....
ADA compliance and enforcement is far from perfect in physical spaces, but at least the law exists. But courts are indeed badly split over whether digital spaces—rapidly becoming a dominant sector of the US economy—also fall under Title III protections.
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."
These seem like good reasons to try and get the SC to weigh in, especially as Domino's is national and could be sued in multiple jurisdictions with different interpretations of the ADA and the internet. It's not just do one easy thing to comply, as there are a variety of possible (and existing) claims about what needs to be done, and are likely to be more in the future. Clarity is good (and largely what Domino's seems to want is for the DOJ to clarify what the website must do to be in compliance).
Also of interest is this synopsis of the 9th Cir ruling: https://www.adatitleiii.com/2019/01/ninth-circuit-allow-the-robles-v-dominos-website-and-mobile-app-accessibility-lawsuit-to-move-forward/
"The Ninth Circuit concluded by making clear that it was not expressing any opinion about whether Domino’s website or mobile app comply with the ADA. The court instructed the district court to proceed with discovery and then decide whether Domino’s website and app comply with the ADA’s effective communication and full and equal enjoyment mandates.
From the defense perspective, there are several useful points in the decision.
First, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its position that, to be covered by the ADA, a website or mobile app must have a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation. The court stated that this nexus was “critical” to its analysis in the Domino’s case where the “alleged inaccessibility of Domino’s website and app impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises – which are places of public accommodation.” The Ninth Circuit said in a footnote that it was not deciding whether “the ADA covers the websites or apps of a physical place of public accommodation where the inaccessibility does not impede access to the goods and services of a physical location.”
Second, the Ninth Circuit left open the possibility that a 24/7 toll-free phone line could be a way to provide access in lieu of an accessible app or website. The court did not have to consider the question of whether a telephone hotline could be an adequate alternative to an accessible website or mobile app because the district court’s holding was not based on the phone line. However, the Ninth Circuit said in a footnote that “the mere presence of a phone number, without discovery on its effectiveness, is insufficient to grant summary judgment in favor of Domino’s.” This statement suggests that, with discovery on the effectiveness of the phone line, summary judgment for Domino’s could be a possibility."
There's more, but those struck me as worth quoting here.0 -
tcunbeliever wrote: »It seems like the biggest issue is, there is no clearly defined rules for compliance. No large company wants to make a compliance change more than once, and multiple suits in different courts have netted different rules for what qualifies as compliant or if web/mobile sites even should require compliance.
I agree that this is the perfect case for the Supreme Court. There needs to be a unified ruling regarding what is or isn't compliant in terms of companies offering web/mobile items to disabled users. That's what the Supreme Court can do, set a clear structure around this that the lower courts can then use to make individual decisions consistently.
I think this is pretty common, for the law to lag behind tech. Congress people aren't tech experts, and laws take longer to make than technological progress. I mean for example Facebook has been in business long before anybody thought about whether there even should be laws about the data they capture, how it can be used and shared, etc.0 -
It's more about the relevant regs than expecting Congress to add to the law.
https://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm1 -
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.
I don't think this is frivolous, but I don't think it will win. I think Domino's is probably within their rights seeing as how they provide other, ADA compliant ways to get pizza. But I don't see any reason to think the person who wants accommodation isn't doing this in good faith. And I think it's for the best that it gets settled and everybody knows what to expect going forward.2 -
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?"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?
These are major strawman arguments, as they don't have remotely anything to do with the issue at hand. The ADA has been law for almost 30 years. There is clear framework of what is and isn't reasonable accommodation in the physical world. So your "what's next" is nonsensical.
This is about what is figuring out what is a reasonable accommodation in the digital age. There is certainly some uncertainty about it. As highlighted in the first post, there are some benefits to ordering online that you can only get that way. Besides membership programs, there is the ability to track your order to see how long it will take and where your delivery is, which is especially beneficial to people who may take additional time to get ready or go and receive the delivery. So there are a lot of things here that I don't think can just be waved off as "well why don't you call then". Online ordering has taken off like it has because ordering a pizza (or pretty much anything) on a phone is pretty miserable experience.
It will be interesting to see how the case goes. I don't have a ton of confidence in this supreme court to rule in a way that is particularly disability friendly. But maybe I'll be surprised. It's likely to be a 5-4 vote either way, with Roberts as the swing vote.4 -
I had a tickle in my brain about being able to voice-order a pizza on the Domino's app and it existed in 2014. Did they remove it since then? https://www.retaildive.com/ex/mobilecommercedaily/dominos-mobile-virtual-ordering-assistant-dom-tops-half-million-orders
If voice-ordering a pizza through the app on your phone doesn't satisfy reasonable accommodation, I don't know what will. That also comes with the ability to check on your order and receive texts that tell you what stage of prep has been achieved.
2 -
Agreed. Compliance is difficult at best if there are no clear cut standards to comply with...tcunbeliever wrote: »It seems like the biggest issue is, there is no clearly defined rules for compliance. No large company wants to make a compliance change more than once, and multiple suits in different courts have netted different rules for what qualifies as compliant or if web/mobile sites even should require compliance.
I agree that this is the perfect case for the Supreme Court. There needs to be a unified ruling regarding what is or isn't compliant in terms of companies offering web/mobile items to disabled users. That's what the Supreme Court can do, set a clear structure around this that the lower courts can then use to make individual decisions consistently.
This has been the model the US has used for ages - the industry is expected to police themselves based upon guidances instead of rules since the 90s when every regulation became such a political hot button and nothing can get passed through congress. There's a good deal of risk assessment and mitigation involved which boils down to three primary elements:
1. Serve the public trust (your customers)
2. Show your work (data integrity)
3. Show improvements to process (continuous improvement)
If you can demonstrate these three core values then you'll be fine.
And it's the model that industry has typically fought for, so I don't have a lot of sympathy when they come back and complain about the uncertainty that results because they got their way in opposing specific government mandates. It's like the proverbial murderer who killed his parents begging for mercy because he's an orphan.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
I don't think this is frivolous, but I don't think it will win. I think Domino's is probably within their rights seeing as how they provide other, ADA compliant ways to get pizza. But I don't see any reason to think the person who wants accommodation isn't doing this in good faith. And I think it's for the best that it gets settled and everybody knows what to expect going forward.
I think this post, and the bolded are a great way to sum up how I feel here. I mentioned above that i wasn't sure if this may be frivolous or not and I'm pretty sure I didn't believe it was as I was typing it. I've known (most probably have or do) known many folks with one disability or another and I'm all for leveling the playing field as it were, for them.1 -
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?"
Meanwhile it's becoming more and more usual for concert halls to install systems that allow people with hearing aids to use loop systems. So yes, symphonies are becoming more accessible to their audiences with hearing impairment. Of course there's also the issue of classical musicians being at serious risk of hearing loss and there has been at least one successful lawsuit with regards to that and there are also now plenty of orchestras that provide hearing protection for their musicians. I remember I once sang Mahler's 2nd Symphony with a major orchestra and there were sections where I could feel my pants vibrating, it was that loud. And that's despite being above and behind the brass.
Also as an aside, the oratorio that's mentioned in the Seattle Times article is great.3 -
I just this on the Weather channel this morning:
https://weather.com/news/trending/video/national-park-in-michigan-offering-track-wheelchair-for-disabled
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan has introduced a track chair that allows people with disabilities to access their trails. The video stated at the end that a state park in Colorado had a similar program starting up.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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.
I don't think this is frivolous, but I don't think it will win. I think Domino's is probably within their rights seeing as how they provide other, ADA compliant ways to get pizza. But I don't see any reason to think the person who wants accommodation isn't doing this in good faith. And I think it's for the best that it gets settled and everybody knows what to expect going forward.
This is a fair statement.
On one hand, your right that it isn't frivolous for the visually impaired to desire inclusion in modern conveniences.
On the other hand, there are existing options for them to be served by the company and receive the same goods at the same price.
I think it's also fair (maybe not virtuous but at least fair) that Dominos have the option to leave the "reasonable accomodations" as they are (phone and in-person orders) or pay to make the online service available.
Considering that visually disabled adults make up less than 3% of the adult population, I imagine their decision was that it wasn't worth the cost to implement changes for such a small portion of their customer base when the affected customers are likely accustomed to making their orders over the phone anyway.
Probably the only "bad guys" involved on either side are people not even affected but who choose to demonize one side or the other.0 -
Related:
Why, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, do so many people still walk into carryout pizza places, order in person and then stand there for 30-40 minutes waiting on their pizza?
Call ahead ordering has been standard for over 40 years even if you don't prefer to use the Papa John's app.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Related:
Why, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, do so many people still walk into carryout pizza places, order in person and then stand there for 30-40 minutes waiting on their pizza?
Call ahead ordering has been standard for over 40 years even if you don't prefer to use the Papa John's app.
Last minute "we should have pizza!" thoughts when already out of the house, nothing to do in the area, having ordered in advanced and getting to the pizza place before they expected to...2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Related:
Why, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, do so many people still walk into carryout pizza places, order in person and then stand there for 30-40 minutes waiting on their pizza?
Call ahead ordering has been standard for over 40 years even if you don't prefer to use the Papa John's app.
Some people are just old-timey like that. Can't fix everyone with progress.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Related:
Why, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, do so many people still walk into carryout pizza places, order in person and then stand there for 30-40 minutes waiting on their pizza?
Call ahead ordering has been standard for over 40 years even if you don't prefer to use the Papa John's app.
Not waiting that long, considering they usually say 15-20 min. But if traffic is lighter than normal and I get there sooner, and guessed wrong viewing thru window that my pizza was brought out - I'll go in and may appear to be waiting.
But I do prefer to call it in at certain intersection and get that estimate.
I know - probably same person that will give estimate to online order when they confirm it.
0 -
tcunbeliever wrote: »It seems like the biggest issue is, there is no clearly defined rules for compliance. No large company wants to make a compliance change more than once, and multiple suits in different courts have netted different rules for what qualifies as compliant or if web/mobile sites even should require compliance.
I agree that this is the perfect case for the Supreme Court. There needs to be a unified ruling regarding what is or isn't compliant in terms of companies offering web/mobile items to disabled users. That's what the Supreme Court can do, set a clear structure around this that the lower courts can then use to make individual decisions consistently.
Different disabilities have different needs. It's about inappropriate for a statutory mechanism to dictate solutions, but it is reasonable to mandate how the challenge is approached.
I have a feeling in this case that people are focusing on the complainant being blind, but some of the mitigations for blindness would also be appropriate for apraxia or dyspraxia. Alternatives may be needed by a dyslexic, or autistic, user.
The general principle is that adjustments should be proportionate and as much as possible replicate the abled experience.
Bringing the principle into meatspace, my own disability presents some challenges around using the gym. The mitigations for that are reasonably straightforward, with accessible changing facilities, and some provisions around space. Others, including ableds, benefit from those same accessibility changes.5 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »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.
The option of calling and ordering over the phone isn't reasonable accommodation?
No. It doesn't replicate the abled experience.
Would you rather that disabled people be excluded from participation in society?5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Related:
Why, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, do so many people still walk into carryout pizza places, order in person and then stand there for 30-40 minutes waiting on their pizza?
Call ahead ordering has been standard for over 40 years even if you don't prefer to use the Papa John's app.
We use a couple of mom and pop shops here and they (the ones we use anyway) started hitting customers with a mileage based delivery fee. We live about 2 miles from the nearest one and our usual order went up by about $5. When we questioned it we were told that was correct.
So we call and go get it...that's $5 for bass bait, or 2 good coffees, or some chocolate stuff, or...2 bags of Oreos lol.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »The option of calling and ordering over the phone isn't reasonable accommodation?
No. It doesn't replicate the abled experience.
Would you rather that disabled people be excluded from participation in society?
I don't think anything will "replicate the abled experience" if the participant simply hasn't got a particular ability. That's why the standard is for reasonable accommodation.
Maybe if you could explain to me how the person who had to speak to another human being over the phone in order to place his Domino's pizza order is being excluded from participation in society?
4 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »The option of calling and ordering over the phone isn't reasonable accommodation?
No. It doesn't replicate the abled experience.
Would you rather that disabled people be excluded from participation in society?
I don't think anything will "replicate the abled experience" if the participant simply hasn't got a particular ability. That's why the standard is for reasonable accommodation.
Maybe if you could explain to me how the person who had to speak to another human being over the phone in order to place his Domino's pizza order is being excluded from participation in society?
So the example you used would be to take an online transaction and convert it to voice. When adjustments to an online experience for blind of visually impaired users are fairly straightforward it's not "reasonable" to suggest that voice is an alternative. It's a very different ordering experience. Those adjustments ould also apply to, as I commented upthread, someone with apraxia or dyspraxia.
To use a fairly common co-experienced condition; apraxia and aphasia. Given the current model they can't remotely order at all. The experience that's being replicated is ordering without human interaction, not just ordering.5 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »The option of calling and ordering over the phone isn't reasonable accommodation?
No. It doesn't replicate the abled experience.
Would you rather that disabled people be excluded from participation in society?
I don't think anything will "replicate the abled experience" if the participant simply hasn't got a particular ability. That's why the standard is for reasonable accommodation.
Maybe if you could explain to me how the person who had to speak to another human being over the phone in order to place his Domino's pizza order is being excluded from participation in society?
So the example you used would be to take an online transaction and convert it to voice. When adjustments to an online experience for blind of visually impaired users are fairly straightforward it's not "reasonable" to suggest that voice is an alternative. It's a very different ordering experience. Those adjustments ould also apply to, as I commented upthread, someone with apraxia or dyspraxia.
To use a fairly common co-experienced condition; apraxia and aphasia. Given the current model they can't remotely order at all. The experience that's being replicated is ordering without human interaction, not just ordering.
Ok. Good luck with that. I'm only mortal, and don't really see how it's possible. But sure, if you want to demand it of Domino's without any guidelines for what they need to accomplish, exactly, aside from "make every disabled person feel abled while they order their pizza online." You do realize that when a venue makes an accommodation for wheelchairs, they don't make it possible for the wheelchair to go up the stairs - they have to take a different route, called a ramp. I thought it was all about the end result - wheelchair gets into the venue/person who has difficulty clicking the right buttons still gets pizza. The experience and the end result are two different things - and clearly, I have no idea what's reasonable.
Sorry. I'll go be unreasonable somewhere else.7 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »The option of calling and ordering over the phone isn't reasonable accommodation?
No. It doesn't replicate the abled experience.
Would you rather that disabled people be excluded from participation in society?
I don't think anything will "replicate the abled experience" if the participant simply hasn't got a particular ability. That's why the standard is for reasonable accommodation.
Maybe if you could explain to me how the person who had to speak to another human being over the phone in order to place his Domino's pizza order is being excluded from participation in society?
So the example you used would be to take an online transaction and convert it to voice. When adjustments to an online experience for blind of visually impaired users are fairly straightforward it's not "reasonable" to suggest that voice is an alternative. It's a very different ordering experience. Those adjustments ould also apply to, as I commented upthread, someone with apraxia or dyspraxia.
To use a fairly common co-experienced condition; apraxia and aphasia. Given the current model they can't remotely order at all. The experience that's being replicated is ordering without human interaction, not just ordering.
Ok. Good luck with that. I'm only mortal, and don't really see how it's possible. But sure, if you want to demand it of Domino's without any guidelines for what they need to accomplish, exactly, aside from "make every disabled person feel abled while they order their pizza online." You do realize that when a venue makes an accommodation for wheelchairs, they don't make it possible for the wheelchair to go up the stairs - they have to take a different route, called a ramp. I thought it was all about the end result - wheelchair gets into the venue/person who has difficulty clicking the right buttons still gets pizza. The experience and the end result are two different things - and clearly, I have no idea what's reasonable.
Sorry. I'll go be unreasonable somewhere else.
Sometimes it's not as easy as making an app usable by blind or visually impaired users.
A principle I quite like is the seamless choice, as different accessibility needs can be catered for in different ways. But the key is understanding what it is that we're trying to repliate. Going back to the example upthread about walking trails, it's possible for a venue to provide offroad chairs, so allowing some access to mobility impaired users. I've seen similar elsewhere, taking otherwise inaccessible routes into a practical opportunity.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Related:
Why, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, do so many people still walk into carryout pizza places, order in person and then stand there for 30-40 minutes waiting on their pizza?
Call ahead ordering has been standard for over 40 years even if you don't prefer to use the Papa John's app.
Last minute "we should have pizza!" thoughts when already out of the house, nothing to do in the area, having ordered in advanced and getting to the pizza place before they expected to...
No, I'm talking about people walking in and saying "Yeah, I'd like to place an order."
Happens all the time.
I, myself, often arrive before my pizza's ready (thus my experience with watching people walk in to place orders). That's different than going to the local Papa John's (which is situated by a neighborhood) and placing the order in person and then waiting there.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Related:
Why, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, do so many people still walk into carryout pizza places, order in person and then stand there for 30-40 minutes waiting on their pizza?
Call ahead ordering has been standard for over 40 years even if you don't prefer to use the Papa John's app.
Last minute "we should have pizza!" thoughts when already out of the house, nothing to do in the area, having ordered in advanced and getting to the pizza place before they expected to...
No, I'm talking about people walking in and saying "Yeah, I'd like to place an order."
Happens all the time.
I, myself, often arrive before my pizza's ready (thus my experience with watching people walk in to place orders). That's different than going to the local Papa John's (which is situated by a neighborhood) and placing the order in person and then waiting there.
Ah I misread your post. In that case, the first point still stands (realizing they want pizza when already out of the house). Of the places that I get pizza from, I'd be willing to wait at all of them because there is more than enough I can do to amuse myself for 20-30 minutes. Reading, knitting, and paying too much attention to my phone all come to mind.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