[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.

[blowski]

If the user can use reasonable measures (such as different settings, or an alternative browser) to access the content, that's not at all the same as asking a wheelchair user to drag themselves up the stairs.

There is absolutely no legal requirement to either spend a fortune on designers, or reduce your website to some boring text-only mush, in the name of "accessibility". The website in question is accessible via a screen-reader, but even if it wasn't, they are not in a market where broad accessibility would be considered a legal requirement. If that were the case, half the websites on the internet would be taken offline.

If you did take this to court, you would lose.