Hacker News Reader

Comment by KingMachiavelli | Hacker News Reader

> This attack entirely breaks tab ordering, deeming the internet unusable for people requiring software assistance to provide accessibility to the World Wide Web. Additionally, the “escape” key, which is often used to close dialogs, doesn’t close the Xfinity notice.

A few weeks (months?) back there was an article about ongoing litigation on if websites are required to have accessibility compliance under the ADA act. I would be very happy to see Xfinity sued for this practice under that precedent and hopefully any injection would be considered a violation.

Status of supreme court case: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dominos-pizza-ll...

View on HN

Only tangentially related, but how is the ADA act looked upon by Americans? The only time I've heard about it as an European was when Stanford (?) was forced by litigation to take entire swathes of free online education offline because it didn't have subtitles. I'm all for making the web more accessible but it really soured me on the notion of such acts and if they are the best way to enforce said accessibility.

All tools can be used for good or ill. The ADA has made the US a whole lot more accessible for many folks from wheelchair ramps everywhere to disability accommodations at fun parks.

Most everyday Americans probably know very little about its particulars, though they all know the name. Business owners, especially small business owners, are well aware of its abuse on several fronts, from labeling pets as "emotional support" (fortunately this has been clearly rejected by statute, but people try it anyway), to suing business owners because their wheelchair ramps are the wrong angle, to examples such as the one you mention (which to me was a violation of free speech as well).

I am all for web accessibility, and I think companies and developers should consider it a priority, but I do not think a law like the ADA is a good fit for this issue. The parts of the ADA that are good are the prohibition on actively discriminating against people with disabilities and requiring reasonable changes in policies. Requiring buildings to be rebuilt and taking down websites are excessive infringements on freedom and would best be addressed by the free market.

Here are some links you might find interesting: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/06/11/the-disabli... https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/ada-trolls-and-unintended-... https://www.city-journal.org/beyonce-lawsuit-ada https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/parking-lot-trolls-laws... https://adadefense.net/

How would the free market help increase web accessibility?

It would be one of many possible features firms could compete on. Developing more accessible apps would result in an increased userbase leading to greater revenue (and potentially take you from a perfect competition to monopolistic competition secnario, reducing the elasticity of demand for your product, allowing you to raise the price).

> Developing more accessible apps would result in an increased userbase leading to greater revenue

Only if the marginal cost of developing them is less than the revenue attained by developing them, which is also limited by the amount of funds that disabled people have.

Disabled people existed before ADA, and the reason ADA was popular was because it didn’t make business sense to serve the disabled population. There’s no way construction costs of ADA accessible features of a building will ever be recouped by sales to disabled people needing it.

A free market solution would require the government to give sufficient cash to disabled people, enough to make businesses want to compete for them. But that is also wrought with possibilities for corruption.

My HOA was sued for some slightly uneven sidewalks and the fact that some people had parked cars that jutted out of their driveways. Plaintiff doesn't live here, has pretty much made a living by such lawsuits. So while I agree with the tenets of the ADA, it's just one more example of how legislated morality will be abused by a small percentage for their own gain. If it were repealed tomorrow I would shrug.

Just because someone is entering a seemingly frivolous lawsuit, is it fair that the HOAs sidewalks are inaccessible in general? I feel like it feels wrong because someone is profiting on it but society is more equitable as a result and I don't feel that is an abuse of the legislation.

In fact, if profit drives more people to fight for what's right, then it becomes easier to make the world a better place.

Profit is just one form of incentive that we can align for increasing compliance with directives with a positive social benefit. All incentives are abusable if you design them incorrectly, so I see no reason to vilify profit over other kinds of incentives.

This is very convenient and self serving logic. Everything will be abused by a small percentage for their own gain. Dismissing the entire ADA because of a few anecdotal examples that were irritating to _you_ is completely nuts when weighed against the massive improvement in quality of life the ADA has created for the millions of disabled Americans.

When you say you'd shrug what you are really saying is that you care about your HOA and don't give a crap about people with disabilities. If you did care you'd be proposing ways to close loopholes like the one Plaintiff was exploiting.

I hear plenty of stories like this out of California. Their enforcement of the ADA is somewhat unique. Instead of having inspections and compliance officers, any wronged party can file a claim and receive ~$4k in compensation. There are plenty of people who make a considerable amount of money as 'freelance' code enforcement.

My issue with this system is the animosity it causes. Panzagl had one interaction with this method and it was enough for them to be ambivalent about the ADA.

A friend of mine does public outreach for an organization for the blind in Seattle, and 99% of ADA non-compliance that they see stems from ignorance and is solved by education.

I used to live in a neighborhood that frequently had un-shoveled/un-salted sidewalks and cars parked across the sidewalk. As someone who walks a dog, it's fucking obnoxious to have to wander around in two feet of snow because someone didn't want to park on the street, or slip and fall on an unsafe sidewalk.

The disabled aren't the only people who care. Take care of your sidewalk, it's your legal fucking responsibility.

I believe this happened at UC Berkeley as well. For what it's worth, neither institution was 'forced' to remove the content. They were obligated to offer the content equally to all users and they chose to not do so because it cost money to create accessible content. While I feel it's unfortunate access to information was lost, I respect and still stand behind the sentiment of the law. Just because you're doing something 'good' doesn't mean you can ignore access needs of protected classes. Especially considering these are institutions with billions of dollars of endowment, funding, and tuition, I'm certainly on the side of the those with disability.

> ...I'm certainly on the side of the those with disability.

In your mind, is it possible to be on the side of those with the disability and yet still against the ADA?

Put another way, given the two concrete examples mentioned (UCB and Stanford) did actual people with actual disabilities gain greater access to the content that was taken offline (in order to comply with the ADA)? Lots of laws have good intentions and bad effects. I think we should judge them by their effects, not their intentions.

If ADA compliant content requires more resources to produce, allowing something to remain in violation because it’s free seems like a great way to price ADA compliant content out of existence.

That said, perhaps an improvement to the ADA would be budget to help producers of free content to become ADA compliant.

In America, due to a distrust of bureaucracy and the fact that enforcement or lack thereof can be up to the willpower of the executive, establishing liability via the judicial system is an effective enforcing mechanism.

Absent liability, the other alternatives are some sort of executive branch enforcer (which does things to the whim of the executive) or some kind of onerous licensing/certification scheme (e.g. doctors), and both are IMO worse outcomes.

The litigation is over. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case a few weeks ago. The "Petition DENIED" at the bottom of that status page is referring to the petition for cert.

That is inaccurate for many reasons.

The Supreme Court declined to overturn the Ninth Circuit, because there was no circuit split or other issue of such urgency to require the Supreme Court to weigh in.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled (somewhat) in favor of the plaintiffs, and remanded the matter to the district court having reversed the lower court on some questions of law.

I think it is still a live controversy in the district court, but it seems likely that the plaintiffs will win on the merits or obtain a settlement.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/15/1...

You wrote "That is inaccurate", but you didn't cite a single inaccuracy in the gp comment. You wrote some other sentences, but they don't appear to contradict anything gp wrote.

The GP claimed litigation was over. The parent claims it isn't over. Oftentimes higher courts decide a specific question pertaining to a case, not the whole case. Just because a higher court clarifies something doesn't mean litigation is over - it means the lower courts can continue with that point now clarified and/or corrected.

Thank you for the further explanation. I see what you mean.

The litigation is on going. The Supreme Court declined to hear the petition to essentially throw the case out, in effect paving the way for trial between the plantiff and Dominoes.

Our industry was attempted to be shaken down by hacks filing frivolous lawsuits against single owners.

This is a criminal case, I for one cannot accept a financiap repercussion for this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com