<story><title>Court rules grocery store’s inaccessible website isn’t an ADA violation</title><url>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/appeals-court-rules-stores-dont-need-to-make-their-websites-accessible/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>shariqm</author><text>I see some people are feeling conflicted trying to balance 1) Making the web more accessible with 2) Increasing business&amp;#x2F;startup costs.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s important to remember making websites more accessible often benefits everyone in some way. e.g. providing an alt text description for images on your website obviously benefits visually impaired users, but it also benefits people who can&amp;#x27;t afford high bandwidth or people who are moving through a remote area. In the Microsoft framework these three scenarios are called:&lt;p&gt;1) Permanent (Visually Impaired)&lt;p&gt;2) Temporary (Can&amp;#x27;t afford high bandwidth)&lt;p&gt;3) Situational (In a remote area)&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s good online resources for understanding these concepts [1,2,3].&lt;p&gt;Anyway, for companies as big as WinnDixie, with $10B in annual revenue, they should be designing their websites to be accessible by everyone. For small businesses it would be nice if website building providers like SquareSpace and Wix made this as easy as possible for their users.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.iweb.co.uk&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;inclusive-design-why-our-websites-should-more-accessible&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.iweb.co.uk&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;inclusive-design-why-our-webs...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=TAzkrXTGEOM&amp;amp;t=55s&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=TAzkrXTGEOM&amp;amp;t=55s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[3] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.w3.org&amp;#x2F;standards&amp;#x2F;webdesign&amp;#x2F;accessibility&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.w3.org&amp;#x2F;standards&amp;#x2F;webdesign&amp;#x2F;accessibility&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Court rules grocery store’s inaccessible website isn’t an ADA violation</title><url>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/appeals-court-rules-stores-dont-need-to-make-their-websites-accessible/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>curryst</author><text>This is a messy situation. On one hand, I totally get that the internet is a massively important portion of most people&amp;#x27;s lives, and people that need special accomodations should be able to participate. On the other hand, accessibility still doesn&amp;#x27;t seem to be easy to implement. I don&amp;#x27;t work on the frontend, so I could be wrong, but last I looked, it seemed heavily manual and somewhat hard to integrate. It will be expensive to implement, at least until someone makes a better abstraction.&lt;p&gt;I suspect the Domino&amp;#x27;s ruling will be the winning one, but I don&amp;#x27;t know where that line gets drawn. Does my blog have to support accessibility? I don&amp;#x27;t sell anything, but it is public. Is the neighborhood softball league going to have to implement it? Commercial entities will probably have to comply, but I&amp;#x27;m curious what the impact on the rest of the landscape will be.</text></comment>