Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmcqk6 | Hacker News Reader

This is going to be very tough to enforce, but I think it could have a positive effect on many websites. Forcing ADA requirements could lead to a better design in some places. Heck, just making sites readable on a screen reader could force huge improvements. Of course, the downside is that this is going to be a very costly change for most websites out there who have never even considered accessibility issues. That is, assuming this ruling is upheld.

Really, though, as a web developer/designer, you need to be considering accessibility from the very start. It's likely to come up as an issue at some point, especially if your software is going to be used by educational institutions or non-profits.

View on HN

You will not gain wide spread support with an iron fist. You will just gain developers who resent the disabled. Education is /way/ more important than legal requirements.

> you need to be considering accessibility from the very start

Should you be? Yes.

Do you need to be? No.

I can't spend an extra 10% (or 5%... or even 1%) of development time for the 0.001% of my users who are disabled or using screen readers. The return on investment is just not favorable enough.

Everything you just said can also be said by Walmart or Applebees but they are required to build ramps, custom bathroom stalls, and special parking spots.

Ramps and stalls are standard on any construction nowadays, and there's nothing special about disabled parking spots - they're just the ones closest to the entrance with blue lines instead of yellow.

This on the other hand.. aiya.

They're standard because of ADA.

Ramps and stalls are standard on any construction nowadays,

But that wasn't always true. It took legislation and experimentation and a lot of work to change architects' habits. It's second nature now only because we (as a society) forced them to do it all the time.

> Ramps and stalls are standard on any construction nowadays, and there's nothing special about disabled parking spots - they're just the ones closest to the entrance with blue lines instead of yellow.

You just proved my point. Making it a law made it standard in the industry. Disabled parking spots cost more than regular because of the extra markings and signage. Ramps cost most than stairs. Even if the cost is just 1% - 5% more, that cost has to be absorbed by the business owner and over time, businesses have learnt to take that into consideration.

Other countries where ADA or equivalent laws do not exist, do not have ramps, special parking spots, or similar accommodations for the disabled. Ramps are not standard there. It is a challenge for my cousin's family in India to take him ANYWHERE because he is in a wheelchair. Some elevators are so small that even the smallest wheelchairs don't fit. Most parks, malls, and other public places usually have no ramps so his wheelchair has to be carried with him in it. ADA makes the lives of disabled individuals and their caretakers better.

The question is, does the Internet need an ADA? I myself am split on that. On one hand, I make software to help the disabled communicate but on the other, who wants to be regulated by the Government in their own field?

These accommodations are required legally only by "places of public accommodation". Judges will interpret this as they will, but it is certainly arguable that a website does not necessarily fall into this category.

Does Facebook falls into one of these places? How about CVS website?

You don't think the Internet has become the new public square?

Not quite the same thing as none of those items really have an undue cost to the facility - ramps (when needed, a lot of those stores are built level to the parking lot/sidewalk) can be used for the disabled as well as store workers/delivery workers moving heavy items on dollies/hand trucks, custom bathroom stalls are basically just larger stalls, and special parking spots are just normal parking spots that with a slightly different paint job. There's not much extra effort that goes into these items.

This move would me more akin to requiring Wal-Mart to attach braille price stickers to every individual item in the store.

> There's not much extra effort that goes into these items.

Special parking spots easily cost 1% more than regular parking spots because of the markings on ground and the metal signage. That fits into the excessive cost range that the original parent post was against.

I do like your analogy of braille on every item. I think make something accessible should mean accessible not perfectly suited in the best environment. That is, you should make your site/app accessible to e-readers, not be required to make a whole another custom UI just for e-readers.

> Special parking spots easily cost 1% more than regular parking spots because of the markings on ground and the metal signage.

Eh, I don't know that it would even be 1% more - for a construction project most of the cost comes from the mobilization of equipment and prep work. For the construction of a parking lot, you have excavation, installation of drainage, installaction of subgrade, paving, curbing, signage, and line painting, all of which take a week of more for a decent sized lot. When it comes time to lay out the HPV sport, the line-spraying and post-hole digging equipment is already there, it's just applied differently. I'd be shocked if it were even a 1% difference.

In any event, given that the contingency on construction projects is typically 5% to 10%, so even 1% is insignificant. But we're in the weeds here ;)

The standard for physical buildings falling under ADA Title III is 20%. In addition, ADA title III requires owners and tenants to remove existing barriers on an ongoing basis as resources are available even absent other construction.

In the case of Title III, architects and other people involved in the design are individually liable should they fail to design in accordance with the technical standards.

ADA is civil rights law, and ROI doesn't enter into Title III, only "technical infeasibility." To put it another way, "I make more money by discriminating against the disabled" isn't any more a valid argument than if one substituted "women," "Latinos" or "Coloreds."

> "I make more money by discriminating against the disabled"

If I throw up a proof of concept website in a weekend as a test, it takes off, and I work on it full-time just to make sure it's not exploding/falling over as it scales, and I don't go back and make everything 100% accessible to 100% of my users, am I really discriminating against the disabled?

Am I obligated to cut into my revenue (if _any_) to make the site accessible to users who will not be or are not a valuable asset to me? What if it's a video site and I don't provide closed captioning? Do I have to caption all my videos do the deaf can watch them? Do I have to provide complete transcripts for every blind person?

I'm not intentionally discriminating, I'm just unable to justify allocation of my development time/resources to that particularly area.

I don't think it's a moral problem since I'm not going into it with a "fuck the handicapped" mentality. It's a result of allocation of extremely constrained resources.

(Note: I agree with you. I'm just arguing here for fun. This is unenforceable, anyways, and, if it did become enforced, companies would just move their sites/online companies offshore.)

> If I throw up a proof of concept website in a weekend as a test, it takes off, and I work on it full-time just to make sure it's not exploding/falling over as it scales, and I don't go back and make everything 100% accessible to 100% of my users, am I really discriminating against the disabled?

Yes. At the point where your site stopped being a proof-of-concept and became a public offering, that's when an inaccessible website starts discriminating against disabled people.

Simply put, a service offered publicly needs to be accessible to the public. That public includes people with disabilities.

> a service offered publicly

But there is no legislation that says my website must be publicly accessible. I could randomly return 403 errors, or only block people using Firefox, or only block people from the state of California.

When there's legislation saying that my website must not exclude people, then I'll consider accessibility.

While I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the judge in the article, your comment almost makes the case for legislating. The disabled are a disadvantaged minority, that by definition don't provide much of a profit motive for developers. Even when you consider the relatives of disabled people, there's still going to be a lot of devs who just don't think it's worth the money.

Legislation like this would be unenforceable at the scale the internet operates at, even in a small country.

If I whip up a HTML5/CSS3 website over the weekend that does nothing to be accessible, is it still technically accessible? The entire document is readable with a screenreader even though the contents may be out of order if your reader does not support CSS (or even a certain CSS revision).

What if I use Facebook Connect exclusively to let people login? That's not gonna work with a screen reader.

Who, exactly, will be judging my site to ensure compliance with this legislation? Are they really going to ensure compliance of every page on every website?

Nothing against disabled people (and I, like most people probably do, have some in my extended family), but if I'm building a lean startup and getting stuff out to market quickly, I'm not going to do an accessibility pass. Sorry. If this does become law, you'll start to see Internet entrepreneurs move to more accommodating countries like Singapore as Western countries continue to legislate everything in sight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com