News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Winn-Dixie ordered to update website for the blind. Parent comment

Re:Winn-Dixie ordered to update website for the blind by ubernostrum on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:27AM (#14584768)
In order to get an ADA complaint to succeed, the website has to be inaccessible. Getting the "heavily integrated" ruling wouldn't get a judgment against an accessible site.

And yes, you really do have to go out of your way to build something a modern screen reader can't handle.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Winn-Dixie ordered to update website for the blind by metaphor on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:18AM (#14585113)
From the defendant's motion for judgement[1]: The viability of Gil's claim hangs on the single legal determination: whether Winn-Dixie's website is a place of public accommodation that is subject to the ADA.

Only from this determination does everything else follow.

Citing the list of issues remaining to be determined from opinion, verdict and order[2]: (2) and (3) are contextually relevant questions iff (1) was judged in the affirmative.

> And yes, you really do have to go out of your way to build something a modern screen reader can't handle.

On this note, I suppose we simply agree to disagree.

[1] http://www.adatitleiii.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/121/2016...

[2] https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3067htvmz/florida-southern...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Winn-Dixie ordered to update website for the blind by ubernostrum on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:39AM (#14585205)
Only from this determination does everything else follow.

And the only way there's a violation for the court to deal with is if the site is inaccessible.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Winn-Dixie ordered to update website for the blind by metaphor on Monday June 19, 2017 @05:01AM (#14585498)
And the alleged inaccessiblity was not a violation until after it was legally determined that Winn-Dixie's website was bound to the ADA.
[ Parent | on HN ]