Touchscreens seem like an impassible wall for impaired usability, but Apple made sure to accommodate users as they’d done before. And they did it without compromising on anyone else.
Yes, I am amazed that Apple managed to make the iPhone the go to device for blind users. Generally speaking when accessibility is built in 'by design' everybody benefits. If not immediately then eventually (We all get old )
I've tested (blind) accessibility for websites before, in some depth. Random thoughts:
JAWS is commercial/for-profit, also exclusively Windows-based. One could argue that it's a de facto standard for Windows environments, but there are a number of other packages out there, at least one being open source. Mac/iOS devices don't need this at all.
If you want to see the kind of page the parent company thinks is the most accessible-friendly to their own product, take a look at Freedom Scientific's Accessibility Policy page. This makes me wonder whether FS is actually deflecting their inability to keep up with browser technology, trying to save face with its customer base.
My question would be does the law require equal access to all avenues of access?
No one in my city is blind.None.
I basically agree with everything you said. But maybe you would have a blind person in your city if it was more accessible to the blind. (And you KNOW that there are none? Must be fairly small as cities go.)
Apple should follow accessibility guidelines for the Web, and I believe it will, shortly. But a lawsuit... really? There is a reason they are called guidelines, not laws!
Although I'm removed from the problem at hand, my mom dedicated her whole life (and still does) to the teaching and training of persons with all kinds of disabilities. So I'm not unsympathetic to the troubles these people suffer. That being said, I also find this lawsuit culture abhorrent and toxic. Apple is not being sued because of their failure to follow guidelines, but because they're Apple, and have a ton o cash...
My question would be does the law require equal access to all avenues of access?
Well, every single corner of every single block in my city is currently being torn up to add those bumpy sections. Every single corner. Every single block (that has sidewalk on it). The entire city is being disrupted, as are all my neighboring cities. No one in my city is blind.None. Visually impaired? Sure, technically. But they’re all old. They all live in one of two retirement centers, and they have all manner of shuttle bus access and other support to get where they’re going. Now, in one of my neighboring cities? Sure, blind people of all ages out and about. But do they, even, warrant the tax expenditure (and millions in lost revenue from time lost by disruption) of tearing up perfectly good sidewalk and replacing every corner with things they only need where they’re already going?
This is “least common denominator” behavior and it’s what fucking kills civilization. Apple is to be commended for its efforts to care for everyone in this way and praised for being the industry leader in general. Can you imagine if another company was the one who’d spearheaded the removal of all physical buttons from devices? They wouldn’t have cared one lick for the blind, etc. Touchscreens seem like an impassible wall for impaired usability, but Apple made sure to accommodate users as they’d done before. And they did it without compromising on anyone else.
You are quite a miserable person. I don’t know if there are blind people on my block, let alone the entire city. I suspect that if your sidewalks weren’t being torn up, you would find something else to complain and be unhappy about. Get some therapy.
I have a feeling this falls into a class of lawsuit which are called a "drive by", it got it names from people who would drive by establishments looking to see if they had steps without a handicap ramp to enter a business. They would immediate fill a lawsuit claiming they tries to access the business and could not because it did not have ramp. Most time the people would just looking for a pay out and did not care if they ramp was ever put in. It was later found out these people never try to enter the business and made millions just filing lawsuits.
This women seems to happen onto Apple website and notice it did not comply to current standards and never made an attempt to get Apple to address the issue before filling a lawsuit. It sounds like she got someone to go through the entire site to see what all was wrong with it, the fact they found link that lead to no text or some pages have multiply links to the same content (not sure what this is an issue I see it all the time, bet she had field day with Amazon's website)
My question would be does the law require equal access to all avenues of access?
Well, every single corner of every single block in my city is currently being torn up to add those bumpy sections. Every single corner. Every single block (that has sidewalk on it). The entire city is being disrupted, as are all my neighboring cities. No one in my city is blind.None. Visually impaired? Sure, technically. But they’re all old. They all live in one of two retirement centers, and they have all manner of shuttle bus access and other support to get where they’re going. Now, in one of my neighboring cities? Sure, blind people of all ages out and about. But do they, even, warrant the tax expenditure (and millions in lost revenue from time lost by disruption) of tearing up perfectly good sidewalk and replacing every corner with things they only need where they’re already going?
This is “least common denominator” behavior and it’s what fucking kills civilization. Apple is to be commended for its efforts to care for everyone in this way and praised for being the industry leader in general. Can you imagine if another company was the one who’d spearheaded the removal of all physical buttons from devices? They wouldn’t have cared one lick for the blind, etc. Touchscreens seem like an impassible wall for impaired usability, but Apple made sure to accommodate users as they’d done before. And they did it without compromising on anyone else.
I heard that people are starting to sue cite who put in these bumpy corners, because they are slippery when wet. They give person who can no see a tactile feedback they come to a corners, but they are dangerous to everyone else. You think they wasted lots of money to solve a problem for a few people, what and see how much it is going to cost to rip them up again and put in something else. This falls into, you think you have problem now way to you see the solution the government comes up with.
I'm all for accessibility and I think most bigger websites would be as well. However, I am always suspicious when someone is trying to launch a class action lawsuit seeking punitive damages.
The big questions I have:
1) Is this a problem with the website or the screen reader software she uses?
2) Do what degree do the alleged rendering problems interfere with using the website?
3) Does a website qualify as a "public accommodation or commercial facility" per 42 USC § 12813? The language in the law seems to have been written with physical facilities in mind. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12183
I'm all for accessibility and I think most bigger websites would be as well. However, I am always suspicious when someone is trying to launch a class action lawsuit seeking punitive damages.
The big questions I have:
1) Is this a problem with the website or the screen reader software she uses?
2) Do what degree do the alleged rendering problems interfere with using the website?
3) Does a website qualify as a "public accommodation or commercial facility" per 42 USC § 12813? The language in the law seems to have been written with physical facilities in mind. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12183
The problem with the Americans With Disabilities Act is it was written in 1990 and doesn't even mention the internet. Since no federal law addresses this, judges have been ruling in favor and against people with disabilities filing these lawsuits. I was doing a little browsing on the issue earlier. Someone sued Domino's Pizza over the same thing and lost in court. The judge ruled in Domino's favor because they have an option for ordering on the phone. Reading that, Apple could win this lawsuit since you can order products by phone. The Domino's case happened here in California. Here is something I found online that's interesting:
I'm all for accessibility and I think most bigger websites would be as well. However, I am always suspicious when someone is trying to launch a class action lawsuit seeking punitive damages.
The big questions I have:
1) Is this a problem with the website or the screen reader software she uses?
2) Do what degree do the alleged rendering problems interfere with using the website?
3) Does a website qualify as a "public accommodation or commercial facility" per 42 USC § 12813? The language in the law seems to have been written with physical facilities in mind. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12183
The problem with the Americans With Disabilities Act is it was written in 1990 and doesn't even mention the internet. Since no federal law addresses this, judges have been ruling in favor and against people with disabilities filing these lawsuits. I was doing a little browsing on the issue earlier. Someone sued Domino's Pizza over the same thing and lost in court. The judge ruled in Domino's favor because they have an option for ordering on the phone. Reading that, Apple could win this lawsuit since you can order products by phone. The Domino's case happened here in California. Here is something I found online that's interesting:
Within that link, the site links a NY Times article about all the lawsuits against websites over ADA. That's where I read about the Domino's case.
Here's the thing... access to the Internet isn't a right and it isn't possible to do without a computer or similar connected device. Additionally, web sites are created for many reasons (commercial and noncommercial, privately owned and "government" made)... There is no "right" to access a private site, but Apple being who they are will be more than willing to improve the experience of their customers. That's the good part.
I ran a general accessibility audit with Chrome's Dev Tools on Apple's homepage, a product page and a "buy" page and they seem to score pretty well. Around 80 out of a score of 100. With some tweaks it could be a bit better, but accessibility seemed to be considered. I'm not sure if there are specific experiences that this suit is meant to target.
JAWS is widely used by users requiring accommodations, so I find it odd Apple's web devs haven't audited experiences with it.
Accessibility is a benefit for all users (think "all ships rise") since improved controls and structured content don't care if one is sighted, etc. It's also worth considering that around 20% of the population has a need that the ADA addresses. On a long enough timeline, almost everyone lands in that percentage eventually.
If I were Apple, I would suggest areas where they are continuing/going to make improvements (the work is never done) and compare their website and product offerings to competitors to show how they stack.
One of the most accessibility friendly companies in the world. But still a big target...
Well, if the shoe fits and Apple is indeed not in compliance with the ADA then so be it. You would think that “One of the most accessibility friendly companies in the world” would have been aware of this issue.
On the other hand this article doesn’t say that the plaintiff contacted Apple to make them aware of the problem and allow Apple time to correct the issue. Nope, they filed a lawsuit asking for monetary damages. Why? The church I attend hosts a food pantry, a thrift shop, AA meetings and the ADA militants are always griping about something and threatening the church with legal action, even though the facility is grandfathered in and has a limited budget. I guess they’d rather just have those programs shut down.
Apple is under no obligation to ensure they’re website is fully compatible with various software accommodations. The ADA is primarily about physical access to public facilities and buildings. This goes nowhere. It’s laughable.
One of the most accessibility friendly companies in the world. But still a big target...
Well, if the shoe fits and Apple is indeed not in compliance with the ADA then so be it. You would think that “One of the most accessibility friendly companies in the world” would have been aware of this issue.
On the other hand this article doesn’t say that the plaintiff contacted Apple to make them aware of the problem and allow Apple time to correct the issue. Nope, they filed a lawsuit asking for monetary damages. Why? The church I attend hosts a food pantry, a thrift shop, AA meetings and the ADA militants are always griping about something and threatening the church with legal action, even though the facility is grandfathered in and has a limited budget. I guess they’d rather just have those programs shut down.
Apple is under no obligation to ensure they’re website is fully compatible with various software accommodations. The ADA is primarily about physical access to public facilities and buildings. This goes nowhere. It’s laughable.
Even so, I'm confident Apple will address the complaints in the interest of making their customers happy.
Comments
A tall story if I ever heard one I don't know the details but I bet there is a side to this story that somehow wasn't included
JAWS is commercial/for-profit, also exclusively Windows-based. One could argue that it's a de facto standard for Windows environments, but there are a number of other packages out there, at least one being open source. Mac/iOS devices don't need this at all.
If you want to see the kind of page the parent company thinks is the most accessible-friendly to their own product, take a look at Freedom Scientific's Accessibility Policy page. This makes me wonder whether FS is actually deflecting their inability to keep up with browser technology, trying to save face with its customer base.
This women seems to happen onto Apple website and notice it did not comply to current standards and never made an attempt to get Apple to address the issue before filling a lawsuit. It sounds like she got someone to go through the entire site to see what all was wrong with it, the fact they found link that lead to no text or some pages have multiply links to the same content (not sure what this is an issue I see it all the time, bet she had field day with Amazon's website)
I heard that people are starting to sue cite who put in these bumpy corners, because they are slippery when wet. They give person who can no see a tactile feedback they come to a corners, but they are dangerous to everyone else. You think they wasted lots of money to solve a problem for a few people, what and see how much it is going to cost to rip them up again and put in something else. This falls into, you think you have problem now way to you see the solution the government comes up with.
The big questions I have:
1) Is this a problem with the website or the screen reader software she uses?
2) Do what degree do the alleged rendering problems interfere with using the website?
3) Does a website qualify as a "public accommodation or commercial facility" per 42 USC § 12813? The language in the law seems to have been written with physical facilities in mind. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12183
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=129e861b-79e7-4278-8897-23e15376c799
Within that link, the site links a NY Times article about all the lawsuits against websites over ADA. That's where I read about the Domino's case.