,
35 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
Domino’s will ask the Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit decision that their website should be accessible to the blind.
In court docs, Domino’s revealed it would’ve cost $38,000 to make it accessible.
They’re fighting this.
cnbc.com/2019/07/25/dom…
In court docs, Domino’s revealed it would’ve cost $38,000 to make it accessible.
They’re fighting this.
cnbc.com/2019/07/25/dom…
In 2018, Domino’s reported revenues of $3.43b with EBITDA (profit) of $619.5m.
They’re fighting being forced to make a $38k change for customers who want to pay them for their product.
They’re fighting being forced to make a $38k change for customers who want to pay them for their product.
This is a landmark case for a couple of reasons:
1) It’s an ADA case. Until now, no ADA case against a website has been court decided (the others have been settled, including the Target decision).
2) The 9th District ruled WCAG 2.0A is the guideline.
1) It’s an ADA case. Until now, no ADA case against a website has been court decided (the others have been settled, including the Target decision).
2) The 9th District ruled WCAG 2.0A is the guideline.
Basically, the ruling currently stands that if you’re not WCAG 2.0A, you can be open to ADA penalties.
If SCOTUS choose not to hear it, or rules to uphold the 9th District decision, WCAG 2.0A becomes case law.
If SCOTUS choose not to hear it, or rules to uphold the 9th District decision, WCAG 2.0A becomes case law.
Well, that blew up. Hello everyone.
If you’re interested in the strategies organizations use to deliver better-designed products and services, I’ve got a free, weekly email newsletter for you:
UIE.com/strategy
If you’re interested in the strategies organizations use to deliver better-designed products and services, I’ve got a free, weekly email newsletter for you:
UIE.com/strategy
This continues to generate discussion.
I thought I’d add some facts here.
These facts come from the actual decision of the 9th District Circuit Court judge, S. James Otero, which you can read in all its glory.
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
I thought I’d add some facts here.
These facts come from the actual decision of the 9th District Circuit Court judge, S. James Otero, which you can read in all its glory.
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
Several people have asked why it’s an issue that the Domino’s site and app weren’t accessible if a blind person could just use the phone.
The court considered this.
There’s an interesting footnote that says this:
"Only after Robles filed this suit, Domino’s website and app began displaying a telephone number that customers using screen-reading software could dial to receive assistance."
There’s an interesting footnote that says this:
"Only after Robles filed this suit, Domino’s website and app began displaying a telephone number that customers using screen-reading software could dial to receive assistance."
The footnote goes on to say that the district court didn’t think that met the requirement of "the hotline guaranteed full and equal enjoyment and “protect[ed] the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability.”"
By adding the hotline, Domino’s had hoped to reach summary judgement: the judge would on the spot decide the case had been resolved and closed.
However, the footnote says: "We believe that the mere presence of the phone number, without discovery on its effectiveness, is insufficient to grant summary judgment in favor of Domino’s.”
So, no. The phone number is not enough.
So, no. The phone number is not enough.
Another raised issue is that using the ADA to enforce web or app accessibility is a violation of 14th amendment's due process clause.
The alleged violation is that people suing are not giving the web site owners enough warning of the problem, such that they can fix it in time.
"An impermissibly vague statute violates due process because it does not “give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.”"
"An impermissibly vague statute violates due process because it does not “give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.”"
But the ruling says: "we hold that Domino’s has received fair notice that its website and app must comply with the ADA."
The 9th district’s ruling goes on to say:
"The ADA articulates comprehensible standards to which Domino’s conduct must conform. Since its enactment in 1990, the ADA has clearly stated that covered entities must provide “full and equal enjoyment of the[ir] goods, services, …
"The ADA articulates comprehensible standards to which Domino’s conduct must conform. Since its enactment in 1990, the ADA has clearly stated that covered entities must provide “full and equal enjoyment of the[ir] goods, services, …
… facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations” to people with disabilities, […] and must “ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently …
… than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services,”
In other words, Domino's got their warning in 1990.
In other words, Domino's got their warning in 1990.
Apparently, this wasn’t Domino’s first run in.
From the ruling:
"Thus, at least since 1996, Domino’s has been on notice that its online offerings must effectively communicate with its disabled customers and facilitate “full and equal enjoyment” of Domino’s goods and services."
From the ruling:
"Thus, at least since 1996, Domino’s has been on notice that its online offerings must effectively communicate with its disabled customers and facilitate “full and equal enjoyment” of Domino’s goods and services."
Now, Domino’s argument was that WCAG 2.0 was too new for them to have due process.
"Domino’s argues that this would violate due process because Domino’s has not received fair notice of its obligation to comply with the WCAG 2.0 guidelines."
"Domino’s argues that this would violate due process because Domino’s has not received fair notice of its obligation to comply with the WCAG 2.0 guidelines."
But the 9th district didn’t see it this way. They ruled that the issue wasn’t that Domino’s didn’t comply with WCAG.
Instead, the problem was the site and app was inaccessible to the plaintiff.
Instead, the problem was the site and app was inaccessible to the plaintiff.
WCAG 2.0 is just a way for the court to make sure they’ve fixed the problem.
"Robles merely argues—and we agree—that the district court can order compliance with WCAG 2.0 as an equitable remedy if, after discovery, the website and app fail to satisfy the ADA."
"Robles merely argues—and we agree—that the district court can order compliance with WCAG 2.0 as an equitable remedy if, after discovery, the website and app fail to satisfy the ADA."
This is a subtle, but really important point!
WCAG 2.0 is not a compliance checklist. YOU STILL HAVE TO MAKE THE DESIGN ACCESSIBLE.
WCAG 2.0 is how the court can talk about fix it if you haven’t made it accessible.
WCAG 2.0 is not a compliance checklist. YOU STILL HAVE TO MAKE THE DESIGN ACCESSIBLE.
WCAG 2.0 is how the court can talk about fix it if you haven’t made it accessible.
Now, some have asserted that there’s no way you could make the site and app accessible for only $38,000.
My understanding is that was the assessment of fixing the specific problems lodged in the complaint.
Not a complete overhaul of the design.
My understanding is that was the assessment of fixing the specific problems lodged in the complaint.
Not a complete overhaul of the design.
It’s possible this number is wrong.
Let’s say it is.
Let’s say it’s $3,800,000 instead (100x).
Domino’s 2018 before tax profits was $619,000,000.
The 100x cost to fix this is 0.6% of last year’s profits.
Let’s say it is.
Let’s say it’s $3,800,000 instead (100x).
Domino’s 2018 before tax profits was $619,000,000.
The 100x cost to fix this is 0.6% of last year’s profits.
And it’s unlikely to have cost that much, given both the website and app seem to be built on modern platforms.
Since 2015, they’ve been pitching themselves as an “e-commerce company that sells pizza."
digiday.com/marketing/domi…
Since 2015, they’ve been pitching themselves as an “e-commerce company that sells pizza."
digiday.com/marketing/domi…
They are promoting this for recruiting tech people:
“[Because of] the strength of our brand and our focus on technology innovation, we are now attracting the right people and in the right numbers.”
“[Because of] the strength of our brand and our focus on technology innovation, we are now attracting the right people and in the right numbers.”
In 2018, Forbes wrote:
"When you think about best web experiences, you probably don’t think of pizza companies first. Over the past 5 years, Domino’s Pizza has built an impressive, and immersive, digital experience that rivals many traditional e-commerce brands."
"When you think about best web experiences, you probably don’t think of pizza companies first. Over the past 5 years, Domino’s Pizza has built an impressive, and immersive, digital experience that rivals many traditional e-commerce brands."
forbes.com/sites/kylewong…
This isn’t a small adjunct to their business. It’s the core of their business.
"Mobile contributed to half of their digital sales, with digital sales taking over the majority of sales. "
This isn’t a small adjunct to their business. It’s the core of their business.
"Mobile contributed to half of their digital sales, with digital sales taking over the majority of sales. "
In 2018, Domino’s sales were $3.43b.
That means, digital sales were at least $1.75b.
marketwatch.com/investing/stoc…
Money is not the excuse here.
There is a technical term for this: assholery.
This is blatant discrimination. That’s all.
That means, digital sales were at least $1.75b.
marketwatch.com/investing/stoc…
Money is not the excuse here.
There is a technical term for this: assholery.
This is blatant discrimination. That’s all.
Several people have said that they believe that the government or the law should not be forcing companies to make their sites and apps accessible.
@feather Specifically:
"“we” are saying the value in this work isn’t because it removes or prevents barriers for people with disabilities or because it’s a human rights issue, but the value in this work is because it is good for people without disabilities.”
"“we” are saying the value in this work isn’t because it removes or prevents barriers for people with disabilities or because it’s a human rights issue, but the value in this work is because it is good for people without disabilities.”
@feather The law needs to be involved because companies will only look at profits.
Values are not something you only do when they are convenient.
On the contrary: A value is only important when it pushes you to do something that is massively inconvenient.
Values are not something you only do when they are convenient.
On the contrary: A value is only important when it pushes you to do something that is massively inconvenient.
@feather In summary:
Domino’s is fighting against making their website and app accessible because THEY WANT TO DISCRIMINATE.
They want to say who can and who can’t be their customers.
And THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW.
Domino’s is fighting against making their website and app accessible because THEY WANT TO DISCRIMINATE.
They want to say who can and who can’t be their customers.
And THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW.
