[falcolas]

> Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it?

FWIW, the law says yes. And the law is right, IMO: we should not deprive a minority of their rights just because the majority is fine with the status quo.

And everyone will become disabled if they don't die young. Eyesight in particular is pretty much guaranteed to decline with age.

[blowski]

Which law? Show me.

[toomanyrichies]

They may be referring to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act [1], which:

> ...requires federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding to make electronic technology and information equally accessible for individuals with disabilities. This means that an organization's website must have all features just as accessible for individuals with disabilities as these features are for individuals without disabilities. For example, it must be equally easy for an individual with a disability to find information about an organization's services on their website as it is for non-disabled individuals to access this information.

This is an American law, but obviously other countries may have their own equivalents.

1. https://acs-web.com/digital-marketing-lexicon/section-508-of...

[JohnFen]

> federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding

I don't think that website is either a US federal agency or receives any US federal funding.

[toomanyrichies]

> I don't think that website is either a US federal agency or receives any US federal funding.

IMHO it's hard to tell either way, because their website wasn't designed with ease-of-use in mind.

That said, here's some facts I was able to gather on their business:

> Whilst IT research remains our primary focus, we now offer executive high-end commercial IT services to organisations with unique problems to solve.

> ...we also have a large body of knowledge of older systems, many of which have now gone full-circle and fallen into disuse, technology that has been abandoned and forgotten. We occasionally do projects involving those, especially when nobody else seems to remember how they worked. Our knowledge-base includes legacy programming languages such as Fortran, data conversion from obscure file formats, and even assembly language coding on various platforms.

Based on these quotes, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they have clients in government.

[JohnFen]

OK, your comment here made me gird my loins and actually put up with reading the rest of their website.

Anything is possible, I suppose, but everything I've seen on that site leads me to think it's not a company at all, but a personal hobbyist's website, or perhaps that of a hobbyist club.

[toomanyrichies]

Oh for sure, I definitely also get "hobbyist" vibes from this. I'm not in this thread to persuade anyone that this is a federal contractor's corporate page. My original comment was, more than anything, an attempt to answer the question "Which law?"

[falcolas]

The Americans with Disabilities Act.

From ada.gov:

> The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities.

And specific to web sites:

https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/

[blowski]

Where is the discrimination here?

[falcolas]

> Where is the discrimination here?

Restating the post I originally responded to:

> Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it?

The key words from the comment are: "cannot look at it"

For comparison, some other similar discriminatory phrases from history: "cannot swim in it", "cannot drink from it", "cannot ride on it", "cannot enter it", "cannot buy it"

[blowski]

So because they cannot look at the design, that's discrimination, even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Why don't you take legal action against them?

[falcolas]

> even if they _are_ able to access the content itself?

Just as a non-wheelchair accessible store is an example of discrimination, even if someone in a wheelchair could conceivably gain access to it by dragging themselves up the steps with their arms.

> Why don't you take legal action against them?

Because I'd honestly rather they do the right thing for the right reasons. Lawsuits should be a means of last resort.

And honestly, I'm not rich enough to fund a legal campaign. I'll leave that to someone with more money than I.