Unequivocally, yes.
The disabled should be able to access online resources in a way that is functionally equivalent to an able-bodied person’s experience.
And yes, such accessibility should be protected by law.
The disabled should be able to access online resources in a way that is functionally equivalent to an able-bodied person’s experience.
And yes, such accessibility should be protected by law.
Should the requirement apply to a personal blog? What if that person is associated with something important and publishes interesting/useful information on their blog? What if they sell things? What if they only sell things by mail order and the site is just an ad? What if they have ads?
Level headed enforcement is one important aspect, but I feel like good legislation is really hard here.
What if I decide to put ads on my personal blog because I've noticed that I have enough readers to make that make sense? Am I now a business? What if I decide to sell a plush design I made because people kept asking about it? Let's say that it becomes so popular that I choose to make a business out of it, at which point do I need to start making my website "accessible"? Is it when I file for a business license, or when I reach some amount in sales?
Personally, I don't understand the "accessibility as a right" crowd. Yes I want the web to be accessible to people with disabilities, but I don't think it makes sense to force people to cater to any particular group. Perhaps it makes sense as a requirement for publicly listed companies, and absolutely for any government entity or entities that receive government funding, but not for the average person or small business owner, and the internet blurs the line between individual and company.
(That said, I would sooner make my blog accessible to the vision impaired than make my home wheelchair friendly. Web accessibility is trivial unless you go out of your way to do fancy shit with style sheets and JavaScript, or unless you do dumb shit like put important text in images with no alt-text (just... why??))
On top of most web designers being unable to test with them just to high cost.
But... What if they are 95% headcount and want to do 80% compliance? It just gets fuzzy fast.
And think of Amazon Prime... I love that I can order something and it comes the same day, or next day. That same level of service isn't offered in Sydney, or Rural North Dakota... would we require that of Amazon? Seems crazy.
So the extrapolated argument there is, "You can order a pizza on the phone, why do you need the app?" Likely some app-focused discount code the potential customer is trying to invoke. Seems like a lot of hassle for $2 off the pizza.
Or, again, Rural North Dakota, where you can't get a fast internet connection... is Netflix required to serve that area? I mean... can't we say, "We're only going to service people with a fast connection, modern OS, and who are willing to install our DRM plugins?"
I think it's OK for businesses not to treat everyone exactly the same is all I'm getting at. And, as a small business owner, I want to be able to deny my services to people who I don't want to be associated with -- and I'm OK with them telling their friends I wouldn't serve them. Just because I run a business shouldn't mean I have to be a slave to anyone with a dollar.
Should Ford have to make a car for people who are blind? Should NASA have to retrofit the ISS with wheelchair ramps? I mean... there is a line somewhere, and I think it's fine to leave it with the business owner -- they generally aren't going to do anything that hurts their business.
eg It's not just visually impaired people who hate fucking tiny fonts in light grey on a bright white background.
There's a lot of real-world situations where mandating accessibility would result in closure. There's no way to make Angel's Landing [0] wheelchair accessible, for instance. (this is very common in the US's national parks, to the point that I'd bet that 3/4ths of them have at least one such trail/location) With situations like that, your choices are to keep it open for some people, or for no people.
That's not to say that efforts shouldn't be made. Just that requiring perfection will eliminate everything if perfection is impossible.
So, like, if someone is brain dead, the website needs to pay for a new brain for them? What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense, online or offline.
Genuine question- we have a well established disability law field with decades of law and examples of the limitations and coverage of ADA. Why are you coming up with a random example?
What you mean we, kemosabe?
What is the functional equivalent to a picture of food?
If this opportunistic enforcement-for-profit goes unchecked, and business and the public discover that the ADA bans providing any services that rely on vision, hearing, or limbs, the ADA won't last long.
Having a disability sucks. Not all disabilities are curable. Banning the use of abilities is not a solution that will be tolerated.
I can’t think of any serious proposal ever during the fight for accessibility where this was proposed or seriously considered as an option.
Wheelchair cuts in sidewalks don’t prevent you from stepping on the curb. Elevators to spaces that are otherwise only accessible via stairs don’t remove the stairs.
Ensuring a website works well with assistive software doesn’t mean the website can’t work for users that don’t need assistive software.
Where does this concern come from? What proposal are you worried about where we would ban the use of abilities, or what percent in the application of the ADA do you think warrants this concern?
This is like doing away with wheelchair ramps and replacing it with government employees who will show up and carry the wheelchair up stairs.
Firstly it shifts the burden from the business to providing websites the impaired can use to all of us and it does so in a way that multiplies the costs in a virtually unbounded fashion.
Instead of a business doing the work once we will be expected to open our wallets every time and forever when someone wants to do something on the web where a rapidly increasing share of all business is done.
>What is the functional equivalent to a picture of food?
A well crafted textual description of said food which many times is already somewhere below said food anyway?