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
-
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.
I have done it. Usually, an impromptu decision to have pizza is involved, like if I'm on my way home from rowing, and decide to stop on the way to get a pizza. I might not bother to pull over to call ahead, if the pizza place is like 5 minutes away, and on my route.
And it normally doesn't take anything like 30-40 minutes. Maybe that's because my pizza place is unusually efficient . . . but I suspect that it's more likely that they give you call-ahead people an extra-long time estimate so they can serve us standing-there people quicker, and still be sure your pizza is ready when you arrive.
Dunno, though.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
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.
What specific mandates? It's a model that works as central planning simply cannot keep up with technological advances and even if it could there is rarely consensus.
The justice system needs tort reform and some manner of loser pays.1 -
Just to clarify, I'm not actually ranting about people ordering pizza. Just being goofy. Lol2
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »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?
And ramps don't replicate the experience of climbing a flight of stairs.
Dominos is a provider of pizza. If they provide a reasonable means of ordering pizza, they've made reasonable accommodations.
No one is ordering pizza for the fun of ordering online. They're ordering online to get pizza.
My grandmother doesn't have a cell phone or computer but she buys pizza.6 -
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.
That's...what alternative means.
It's something different that accomplishes the same ends.
Is taking the elevator not a reasonable alternative to taking the stairs? It's a completely different experience but you still get to the floor you need.
Also, it's ironic that you made accusations about wanting to isolate the disabled from society and then go on to argue that alternatives which result in interpersonal communications are unreasonable.4 -
Carlos_421 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.
That's...what alternative means.
It's something different that accomplishes the same ends.
Is taking the elevator not a reasonable alternative to taking the stairs? It's a completely different experience but you still get to the floor you need.
Also, it's ironic that you made accusations about wanting to isolate the disabled from society and then go on to argue that alternatives which result in interpersonal communications are unreasonable.
Hmm, I appreciate that you're struggling to understand what the key elements that should be replicated in these examples. It's fairly common when abled people use examples, having no clue about the lived experience.5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
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.
What specific mandates? It's a model that works as central planning simply cannot keep up with technological advances and even if it could there is rarely consensus.
The justice system needs tort reform and some manner of loser pays.
Any specific mandates. They don't want ex ante regulation and argue it's better to have government intervene after the fact if companies behave in anticompetitive ways or cause actual harm to consumers, then they whine that they shouldn't have been expected to know that what they were doing was wrong because there weren't any specific rules in place to put them on notice.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
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.
What specific mandates? It's a model that works as central planning simply cannot keep up with technological advances and even if it could there is rarely consensus.
The justice system needs tort reform and some manner of loser pays.
Any specific mandates. They don't want ex ante regulation and argue it's better to have government intervene after the fact if companies behave in anticompetitive ways or cause actual harm to consumers, then they whine that they shouldn't have been expected to know that what they were doing was wrong because there weren't any specific rules in place to put them on notice.
From a practical perspective, as someone who does some work on accessibility, there's a wide range of potential use cases, and the materiality of the activity plays a part. Is near impossible to mandate.
In the Domino's case, the process of ordering is a large part of the customer journey. You've got three branches of the ordering process, each with benefits and disbenefits to the customer. Each of those should be accessible; proportionately and reasonably. I would argue that the complaint in this case is excessively narrow, particularly as making mobile sites accessible to a range of disabled people is reasonably straightforward. Far easier than making the other two routes easily accessible, in light of a company strategy to reduce estate commitments. Companies are driving consumers towards online, not away.
Best practice evolves much faster than the legislative process. Legislation of solutions is bad law, legislate on accessibility principles and let the market find ways to meet the need. As an example, should we require Domino's to embed text to speech in their app, or be able to use the text to speech capability of the device?
6 -
With Dominoes and many other pizza places, you get freebies for online ordering - order 10 pizzas, the 11th is free and such...plus, many companies offer "online only" pricing for sale items.
If the disable are prevented from ordering online and these price incentives are only available online, then you are financially penalizing them for being disabled.4 -
tcunbeliever wrote: »With Dominoes and many other pizza places, you get freebies for online ordering - order 10 pizzas, the 11th is free and such...plus, many companies offer "online only" pricing for sale items.
If the disable are prevented from ordering online and these price incentives are only available online, then you are financially penalizing them for being disabled.
This is a one sided view of the process. It costs more because the process costs more.
Customers are incentivized to use technology as the process is simpler and requires less labor, hence the implementation of short term benefits from an app or website.
People without access to an app aren't being penalized anymore than anyone without access to technology.
3 -
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.
Agreed! My parents are in their 80s and don't understand anything about apps or cell phones and can't order online. So if seniors want to order pizza, too bad? It's poor business. Seniors don't always like to cook or don't feel up to it. It should be easy and convenient for them to order in.0 -
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.
Agreed! My parents are in their 80s and don't understand anything about apps or cell phones and can't order online. So if seniors want to order pizza, too bad? It's poor business. Seniors don't always like to cook or don't feel up to it. It should be easy and convenient for them to order in.
They still can order with the phone, no?
The discussion isn't about Domino's getting rid of the phone option, but having an app/online option that isn't accessible to all. (Personally, I mostly order online but have never once used an app to order and don't want to, and it hasn't been that long since I ordered by phone, and I don't think that means I am not part of society, that argument makes no sense to me. But then I also haven't had Domino's pizza since the '90s when I was living in MI. Apparently it's better now, but still with all the great local places that make pizza, I have no interest. That has nothing to do with this lawsuit, of course.)
Even setting aside the specific questions in the cert. petition, the courts have not yet decided whether, under the relevant facts, Domino's telephone option is sufficient to be reasonable accommodations. If the only issue with telephone vs. app/online is the rewards program, an easy fix would be to include phone in the rewards program, but the plaintiff wants to be able to use an app or online, and Domino's wants to protect itself against future plaintiffs too, so wants to know what would be sufficient.0
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
- 232.5K 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