[coolliquidcode]

It sucks to be disabled and this is why it sucks. People shouldn't be wasting lifetimes of time to so that visually disabled people can be slightly more convenienced to browse the internet or play with an app. Especially with alt-text. Minimal effort is fine. Well structured HTML is all that should be needed.

> How can buying a specialty browser solve a problem of a blind person needing alt text for images? If a picture is worth a thousand words you're never going to get the alt text right. There can always be complaints it's not good enough. Look at what happened to Dominoes. They made efforts but it wasn't good enough.

[JadeNB]

> It sucks to be disabled and this is why it sucks. People shouldn't be wasting lifetimes of time to so that visually disabled people can be slightly more convenienced to browse the internet or play with an app.

I think that a big part of why it sucks is that people feel comfortable expressing the idea that working to allow people of all abilities to enjoy the same conveniences is wasting time.

[extra88]

Domino's did not make an effort until they lost in court. They even admitted during the course of the case that the requested fixes would cost like $58,000 to make, far less than the lawyers cost in the case and appeals.

[coolliquidcode]

You are arguing they should have been forced to pay 58k for unnecessary site improvements when each place has a phone line that can be called. They did have alt text but it was deemed not good enough. What real value did disabled customers miss out on?

[hmcq6]

> They did have alt text but it was deemed not good enough.

Did they? Because the suit alleges that they did not have alt text.

> each place has a phone line that can be called.

Ok but what if the person has troubles talking or hearing or dialing the phone?

Accessibility doesn't even take that long. I updated a site I run to be compliant in less than a day. Corporations can afford to meet regulations.

Edit:

According to the lawsuit the phone number was not added too the website until after.

Also from the lawsuit

> But there are substantial reasons to believe that the phone number does not provide the same level of independence and convenience as does the website and the mobile app. In particular, as the district court noted, "callers may experience delays and be placed on hold." Pet. App. 24a. Ambient noise may distract from and interfere with the accurate taking of orders. See p. 8, supra. And giving a credit card number to a live human being over the phone may create a greater risk to privacy than does submitting that information through a secure website. See DCt. Dkt. No. 33 at 15.

[coolliquidcode]

> But there are substantial reasons to believe that the phone number does not provide the same level of independence and convenience as does the website and the mobile app. In particular, as the district court noted, "callers may experience delays and be placed on hold." Pet. App. 24a. Ambient noise may distract from and interfere with the accurate taking of orders. See p. 8, supra. And giving a credit card number to a live human being over the phone may create a greater risk to privacy than does submitting that information through a secure website. See DCt. Dkt. No. 33 at 15.

This is pure nonsense. So what if you may experience delays or be put on hold. Just because something exists doesn't mean you're obligated to provide it.

"credit card number to a live human being over the phone may create a greater risk to privacy" is absurd, it's the way people been taking credit cards from inception to very recently, either it's not good enough and should be banned all together or it's an acceptable means of charging a card. Plus there is protection from the CC company.

[coolliquidcode]

Look at way back machine