
Domino’s asks SCOTUS to shut down a lawsuit requiring its website be accessible - aaronbrethorst
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750913/dominos-pizza-website-accessible-blind-supreme-court-lawsuit
======
nulbyte
> In the document, Domino’s lays out its argument, claiming the cost of
> accessibility requirements may run into the millions, and the rules around
> what is accessible and what is not have yet to be decided.

This is a dense argument. There are well-established web content accessibility
guidelines, aptly named Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Android has
accessibility features built-in, and I'd guess iOS does too, despite having
never used it myself. Nothing about this is particularly costly. WCAG has been
around for over a decade...so what is Domino's angle, really? For a company
that seems to embrace tech, this makes no sense.

~~~
SilasX
Having struggled with it, here's the most charitable reason I can give:

First, remember that the blind have always been able to order pizza by just
calling in with a phone. Domino's is serving the blind in that sense.

The case here is about them being unwilling to provide an _online-only_
discount to the blind. So why are they paying so much to defend, specifically,
a blind-inaccessible, online-only discount?

They offer an online discount, I think, because they get so much more valuable
data from it. Like most websites, sadly, their site loads you down with a
torrent of trackers.

What does that have to do with being accessible? Well, if the blind can easily
navigate to the important parts of a site, so can their screen-reader ... and
so can any program. Then, anyone, not just the blind, can bypass all the crap
on their site when ordering, and even shut out the trackers.

Where's the flaw in my logic?

tl;dr: Anything that helps the blind navigate their site also helps you bypass
tracking, and makes an online-only discount unprofitable.

~~~
vkou
> Where's the flaw in my logic?

They make a lot more money from selling pizza than from tracking you, and if
someone who is blocking trackers can't reasonably order pizza, Dominos would
be shooting themselves in the foot.

If their website doesn't work for <my browser configuration>, I'm not going to
pick up a fucking phone. I'll just order from any other pizza place in my
vicinity.

The likely reality is, they are lazy, and don't want to spend dev effort to be
compliant.

~~~
fuzz4lyfe
The devs are lazy but the lawyers are hard working enough to bring a case to
the supreme court? Surely the amount of effort to have a case there is less
than the effort required to make the site meet some accessibility guidelines.

~~~
bobthepanda
Domino‘s is a pizza company, not a tech company. I would be surprised if they
have the resources or are willing to have developers go over the software with
a fine toothed comb.

The devs may not be lazy but the company probably doesn‘t want to spend time
and effort on this, or, gasp, hire more people.

~~~
berbec
Actually, Domino's has spent a massive amount on tech over the last 15 years.
They pioneered online ordering at scale, real-time order tracking and the
system that runs the store allows corporate to get metrics on everything from
individual pizza production times to length of trip and travel time. They have
a huge tech dept.

Source - former franchisee

------
ToFab123
I remember doing a redesign of a major European government website where
accessible was a priority. We worked together with Jaws (leading developer of
Screen Readers. No affiliate) to find a way to determine if the user was using
a screen reader. They made a few adjustments to their app in order for us to
do that and we proceed with the plans of making a text only version of website
when a screen reader was detected.

This was shot down by the government lawyers as this was against the "equal
access rule". Redirecting users to a different version of the website was
determined to be the equivalent as building a separate entrance to a
government building optimized for wheal chairs users which is against the law.
The law clearly states that all citizen must have same access to government
facilities and that was determined to mean "the same entrance" and "same
facilities within the building".

So an optimized, text only, edition of the website for screen readers was
ruled out and screen reader users was left with a sub-optimal experience ...
but hey they get to use the same URL as everyone else so there is nothing for
them to complain about.

(This is 10 years ago. Dont know if things has changed since. I hope it have)

~~~
mycall
If you own an iPhone/iPad, much has changed. These devices include the best
features for accessibility.

~~~
ToFab123
It is possible to make a website accessible using existing tools and
guidelines but you can make a much better experience if you build a dedicated
edition of your website to use by screen readers.

This would be the equivalent of publishing 2 versions of your iPhone app. One
highly optimized for blind people and another version for everyone else.

Although the iPhone has great accessibility an separate optimized version of
your app would provide an even better user experience but that we were not
allowed to do.

The idea for the text only edition was an idea that was formed by a group of
blind people and was the solution they said was the optimal solution for them

~~~
joedevon
Your approach is an antipattern. It works great for five minutes after you
launch. Then you need to maintain multiple versions of the site. And
inevitably the two versions start to diverge. And guess which version will get
short shrift? There's even a term for this. "Separate but equal". Said
sarcastically. No offense, but I recommend you research this a bit more.

------
inlined
Wasn’t it Domino’s who claimed to be a “tech company which happened to sell
pizza”? If so, that quote says they should know better IMO

------
WheelsAtLarge
The fact that this case has gone to the supreme court shows how difficult it
is for companies to understand that excluding a whole segment of the
population should not be treated as a business advantage. I get it. It's
expensive but there should be a compromise.

I've dealt with having to make a site accessible. There are a lot of mods that
you need to make that are mostly not noticed by most users but are a bear to
keep up to date with a constantly changing website and will add many hours of
work to the website's upkeep. Also if you stick by the strict guidelines there
are web technologies that can't be used - especially the newest tech. Long
term it's easier to maintain 2 sites with different UIs but again that takes
many hours of extra manpower.

I'm one that believes accessibility is a must but I also realize that most
companies aren't willing to spend the extra money.

What's the fix? A compromise like having a very simple web site or it might be
having an alternative system where accessibility means having someone help you
with the site via phone. But fighting all the way to the supreem courts so you
don't have to do any thing is not the answer.

------
SEOinSeattle
This would be a good project for the United States Digital Service. Define
what reasonably accessible means and provide lists and freely available code
that government agencies and and businesses can use to create accessible
websites.

------
termage
Domino’s position makes more sense if you take them at their word: the problem
isn’t technical, it’s that there’s no legal (rather than industry) standard
for what makes a website accessible. Corporations don’t like legal
uncertainty, and what I suspect Domino’s is after is for the Court or Congress
to articulate a standard (or, more likely, point to an existing standard,
giving it the force of law) so that all web sites have common and stable
accessibilty guidelines.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Maybe, but then Domino's marketing people would surely have been all over
making that clearly indicated "we're only fighting this to bring clarity
because accessibility is so important to us" or somesuch.

------
squirrelicus
You ever think how this might apply to, ianno, startups?

Seems like all humans should be on Domino's side, at least all techies.

Edit: before the cacophany decends to tell me how easy accessibility is, let
me preemptively highlight that opportunity cost is the fundamental unit of
cost to a startup. And this is a ycombinator site. So everyone should already
know this.

~~~
ken
I think making all startup web applications more accessible would be a great
improvement for everyone, _especially_ techies. A webpage that’s accessible is
also easier to script or remix.

Why would anyone oppose this? Is the only way to get your startup off the
ground to walk over visually impaired people? Restaurants have razor thin
margins too but I’ve never heard of any restaurant looking to save a buck by
limiting wheelchair access.

~~~
qtplatypus
Unfortunately looking to save a buck by limiting wheelchair access is
frightfully common. That's why people have to get sued under the ADA.

The point of the ADA is to make violating it more expensive then complying
with it.

------
Invictus0
> But these suits put their targets in an impossible situation. Unless this
> Court steps in now, defendants must retool their websites to comply with
> Title III without any guidance on what accessibility in the online
> environment means for individuals with the variety of disabilities covered
> by the ADA

I'm with Dominos. No reasonable person would expect a website to support
people with disabilities; the web is still the totally unregulated wild west
it was 20 years ago. Just because it would be nice to have a web that supports
people with disabilities doesn't mean you can have the Supreme Court will the
requisite regulation into existence, nor does the existence of some informal
accessibility standards mean that they should be enforceable by law. It is the
job of Congress to update the ADA into the 21st century, and until they do
that, the court should not force businesses to comply with the yet-to-be-
written regulations.

~~~
qtplatypus
The ADA says that businesses have to be accessible. It isn't written with
regards to any technology etc. So the Supreme Court can interpret the law as
meaning that it covers the internet. Just like if I invent a novel poison and
use it to kill someone it doesn't stop being murder because no one knew about
that poison when the law against murder was being written.

There have been web accessibility guidelines since 1995 and WCAG 2.0 aka
ISO/IEC 40500:2012 has been around since 2012. Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation act incorporates those guidelines so if you are following those
rules you should be safe.

------
SilasX
Recently discussed on HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20491463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20491463)

------
SEOinSeattle
[https://www.section508.gov/create/web-
content](https://www.section508.gov/create/web-content)

------
sergiotapia
This is crazy, you can already order a pizza by phone. Where does it end
really.

~~~
colejohnson66
But can you get the online exclusive deals over the phone?

------
oh_sigh
I can imagine the Dominos screenreader experience would be quite trying for a
low vision person because it would constantly, seemingly randomly ask "DO YOU
WANT TO ADD MORE CHEESE?", or "WOULD YOU LIKE A CHEESY BREAD?"

~~~
mikeash
I mean, it's super annoying for sighted people already, so it would just be on
par with that experience.

~~~
oh_sigh
I think it would actually be easier. They frequently present big modal popups
about adding items, with tiny font in the bottom right saying 'no thanks'

~~~
mikeash
Good point. Maybe I should try enabling VoiceOver next time I place an order.

------
Uhhrrr
This should be a free speech issue. Domino's already lets you order by phone,
and really it's possible to live a full life without their pizza. I haven't
ordered from them in decades. There's no reason to compel them to make their
platform accessible.

~~~
qtplatypus
There is no free speech issue. These rules don't dictate meaningful content of
their speech but just that the meaningful content is accessible by people with
disabilities.

~~~
Uhhrrr
But that is a ridiculous standard to apply to nonessential broadcasted
information.

